High Guard Smaller Weapons

In the end I went for 4 small pop-up turrets each with a different option for a total of 1 ton and <KCr300.

AC-25 (Field Catalogue) with combat load, computer and smart tracker. (Range 2.5 Km | 9D damage | 100 Mag | AP 7 | Auto 3 | Blast 3)
Tac Launcher (CSC) with Armour Piercing Ammunition. (Range 6 Km | 8D damage | 4 Mag | AP 10 | Smart)
VRF Gauss Gun (CSC) with computer and smart tracker. (Range 750 m | 4D | 400 Mag | AP 5 | Auto 8 | No Signature)
CPPG-13 (CSC) with extended magazine (Range 500m | 1DD damage | 12 Mag | AP 10 | Blast 3).

Also helpfully P10 of the Field Catalogue provides information about firing in vacuum and no gravity. Each condition doubles extreme range. That gives an extreme range of 16 x the listed range which mean all but the CPPG-13 can reach into Short space range,

The Auto Cannon provides a reasonable short range effect against smaller ships as it averages 2 points damage per shot and full auto gives 3 chances. The Tac Launcher provides longer range softening up and some real anti armour capability. The VRF Gauss gun is designed to provide anti-boarding defence though as it can take specialised rifle ammunition there are opportunities to improve its anti-small ship potential for example, whilst TL16 Plasma rounds are 10 times the cost of ball ammunition they will add a dice of damage and double the AP to 10 making it much more effective against ships or more readily available APDS could entirely negate the toughness of the ship allowing the slightly reduce damage to have full effect. The CPPG range is not bad and it is the only weapon with destructive damage and a hefty AP. It is far more reasonably priced than the other plasma weapons and the extended magazine offsets the limited capacity.

Obviously all these weapons would be effective against ground targets.

I have assume any ship mounted weapons are effectively Vacuum modified (per the Field Catalogue).
 
In the end I went for 4 small pop-up turrets each with a different option for a total of 1 ton and <KCr300.

AC-25 (Field Catalogue) with combat load, computer and smart tracker. (Range 2.5 Km | 9D damage | 100 Mag | AP 7 | Auto 3 | Blast 3)
Tac Launcher (CSC) with Armour Piercing Ammunition. (Range 6 Km | 8D damage | 4 Mag | AP 10 | Smart)
VRF Gauss Gun (CSC) with computer and smart tracker. (Range 750 m | 4D | 400 Mag | AP 5 | Auto 8 | No Signature)
CPPG-13 (CSC) with extended magazine (Range 500m | 1DD damage | 12 Mag | AP 10 | Blast 3).
Is it for a civilian, paramilitary, or full military application?

Seems a bit heavy for civilian use, and a bit light for military use?


Also helpfully P10 of the Field Catalogue provides information about firing in vacuum and no gravity. Each condition doubles extreme range. That gives an extreme range of 16 x the listed range which mean all but the CPPG-13 can reach into Short space range,
Sure, at DM-4 for low gravity and DM-4 for extreme range at Close range...


The Auto Cannon provides a reasonable short range effect against smaller ships as it averages 2 points damage per shot and full auto gives 3 chances. The Tac Launcher provides longer range softening up and some real anti armour capability. The VRF Gauss gun is designed to provide anti-boarding defence though as it can take specialised rifle ammunition there are opportunities to improve its anti-small ship potential for example, whilst TL16 Plasma rounds are 10 times the cost of ball ammunition they will add a dice of damage and double the AP to 10 making it much more effective against ships or more readily available APDS could entirely negate the toughness of the ship allowing the slightly reduce damage to have full effect. The CPPG range is not bad and it is the only weapon with destructive damage and a hefty AP. It is far more reasonably priced than the other plasma weapons and the extended magazine offsets the limited capacity.
TL-15 plasma ammo is good enough?

By RAW, ground weapons AP is removed when converting to space scale. I can agree it can be house ruled, but it should be divided by ten, rounded down, just as the damage.

Many common small ships (Scout, Free Trader, etc) have a few points of armour, basically making them invulnerable to small ground scale weapons. Ground scale weapons are deadly to civilian small craft, but then anything is including small arms...



AC-25 (Field Catalogue) with combat load, computer and smart tracker. (Range 2.5 Km | 9D damage | 100 Mag | AP 7 | Auto 3 | Blast 3)
I'm afraid I would disallow the auto-cannon from the Field Catalog, they are just too out of line compared to CSC.
A 6D, 1 km weapon suddenly becomes a 9D, 2.5 km weapon without any countering disadvantage.
Call it a house rule if you wish.


The Medium Gauss Cannon (CSC). This easily reaches into close range is a 1DD weapon (so it threatens even armoured ships). It is AP10 (which should probably be AP1 vs ships but that is not the way the rule is written). It is also Auto 3 which means it is either +3 damage or can roll 3 to hit rolls. It takes up 1 ton and so needs to be mounted in a conventional turret or fixed point (and requires a hard or firm point). It is MCr0.1 (plus the mount cost).
As far as I know Smaller (vehicle) Weapons never consume spacecraft hardpoints or firmpoints. They use ground scale (vehicle) turrets, not spacecraft weapon turrets. The difference between fixed mounts and turrets is just firing arcs in dogfights.

The Medium Gauss Gun is a good compromise of power, range, and rate of fire.
 
Is it for a civilian, paramilitary, or full military application?

Seems a bit heavy for civilian use, and a bit light for military use?
It is specifically for that niche. A trader that doesn't want to invest in the cost and space for real turret systems and weapons but also doesn't want to have to roll over for a pirate that is only equipped with in a small craft with a single beam laser.
Sure, at DM-4 for low gravity and DM-4 for extreme range at Close range...
Yeah, I wasn't sure how those two sets of modifiers meshed. It seems like they replace the existing range for weapons. I am not saying they are necessarily effective out to that range, but they can still present a threat. You do gain +2 for attacking ships with ground weapons and ground weapons can benefit from more positive modifiers than ship weapons. You can offset some of the penalties with vacc-suit skill. The smart tracker also adds another +2.

I ma also not sure of the logic that your sights or the operator cannot compensate for operating in zero gravity (vs low gravity). In low gravity you have to work out a delta form your known sight adjustment as there is still a gravity. In zero gravity you can aim as though at point blank as your shot is going to travel in a dead straight line, so I am house ruling that you don't suffer the low-gravity penalties for zero-g.
TL-15 plasma ammo is good enough?

By RAW, ground weapons AP is removed when converting to space scale. I can agree it can be house ruled, but it should be divided by ten, rounded down, just as the damage.

Many common small ships (Scout, Free Trader, etc) have a few points of armour, basically making them invulnerable to small ground scale weapons. Ground scale weapons are deadly to civilian small craft, but then anything is including small arms...
It was to counter the toughness provided by vehicles rather than actual ship armour (for that you need the CPPG, which by RAW uses it's full AP10 vs ship armour, but I think that should be reduced to AP1). Any ship that has actual armour is liable to be able to chew you up at way beyond the ranges of these things. Small craft other than dedicated fighters don't usually have any armour and even when they do it tends to be a couple of points. I do allow the AP for ground weapons to be divided by 10 and count as space combat AP.

A VRF GG with plasma rounds is rolling 5D for damage and gets AP10. The fighter TL12 would take off 12 points of any damage but the AP10 means that is reduced to only -2. Maximum damage from a 5D weapon is 30 points when divided by 10 that is 3 points, enough to penetrate 2 points of armour and cause a critical hit (against small craft a single hit is a critical). It is an edge condition and you need a good effect before it becomes more credible, but you get 8 chances per combat round on full auto and enough ammunition for 16 full auto bursts. Against a Tl15 small craft with no armour simply doing 15 points of damage is enough for a critical and you have a better than average chance of achieving that.
I'm afraid I would disallow the auto-cannon from the Field Catalog, they are just too out of line compared to CSC.
A 6D, 1 km weapon suddenly becomes a 9D, 2.5 km weapon without any countering disadvantage.
Call it a house rule if you wish.
Field Catalogue does change a few things but as it introduces a system arguably it is the CSC that is "out of line". It is the explosive rounds that add to the damage (the default weapon is 6D) and to be honest HEAP ammunition in the CSC is a bit pathetic for the extra cost. As to range a 25mm cannon should be out to 2.5km rather than 1km.
As far as I know Smaller (vehicle) Weapons never consume spacecraft hardpoints or firmpoints. They use ground scale (vehicle) turrets, not spacecraft weapon turrets. The difference between fixed mounts and turrets is just firing arcs in dogfights.

The Medium Gauss Gun is a good compromise of power, range, and rate of fire.
High Guard has specific rules for ground scale weapons mounted on mini pop-up turrets rather than using vehicle turrets. If you want to free hand it out of an airlock you could still use a tripod of course.
 
Last edited:
It is specifically for that niche. A trader that doesn't want to invest in the cost and space for real turret systems and weapons but also doesn't want to have to roll over for a pirate that is only equipped with in a small craft with a single beam laser.
Ah, OK, a cheap counter to very low end threats.

The cost of a few smaller weapons is low, but it takes a Dt payload and a decent gunner. A decent gunner is expensive (unless he's free as in a dual skill crew member you already have).

A lost Dt of payload would cost a MCr or two in lost revenue over a 40 year mortgage.
An extra gunner would cost a stateroom, life support, salary, and four Dt of lost payload revenue, so perhaps MCr 5 over 40 years.


The obvious alternative would be a few missile racks on a fixed mount. MCr 2.35 per hardpoint, but no lost payload revenue, no needed gunner, and no range limitation.


Yeah, I wasn't sure how those two sets of modifiers meshed. It seems like they replace the existing range for weapons. I am not saying they are necessarily effective out to that range, but they can still present a threat. You do gain +2 for attacking ships with ground weapons and ground weapons can benefit from more positive modifiers than ship weapons. You can offset some of the penalties with vacc-suit skill. The smart tracker also adds another +2.
If you use the extra range, you have to use the corresponding disadvantage in the same rule, IMHO.

The smart tracker only gives a benefit after the first hit. The first hit has to be achieved at base DM-8 for range, DM-2 for lost dogfight, DM+2 for ground weapon, +Gunner, +Vacc. You really need a good gunner...


It was to counter the toughness provided by vehicles rather than actual ship armour (for that you need the CPPG, which by RAW uses it's full AP10 vs ship armour, but I think that should be reduced to AP1).
Why would a CPPG not reduce AP?
Core, p79:
AP X: This weapon has the ability to punch through armour through the use of specially shaped ammunition or high technology. It will ignore an amount of Protection equal to the AP score listed. Spacecraft scale targets (see page 167) ignore the AP trait unless the weapon making the attack is also Spacecraft scale.
I do not see any special rule for CPPGs?


Any ship that has actual armour is liable to be able to chew you up at way beyond the ranges of these things. Small craft other than dedicated fighters don't usually have any armour and even when they do it tends to be a couple of points.
Any ship with a spacecraft turret will chew you up from stand-off range.


I do allow the AP for ground weapons to be divided by 10 and count as space combat AP.
While I agree, that is a house rule. No problem, just making it explicit.


A VRF GG with plasma rounds is rolling 5D for damage and gets AP10. The fighter TL12 would take off 12 points of any damage but the AP10 means that is reduced to only -2.
I agree it's a good choice against vacc suited intruders but at space scale with damage 1-2 AP 1 at a few km it isn't very scary.

A TL-12 ultra-light fighter with armour 3 would just ignore it...

Ground scale weapons divide damage by 10 before armour is deducted. Against space craft armour 12 no ground scale weapon short of nukes would do much.


Maximum damage from a 5D weapon is 30 points when divided by 10 that is 3 points, enough to penetrate 2 points of armour and cause a critical hit (against small craft a single hit is a critical). It is an edge condition and you need a good effect before it becomes more credible, but you get 8 chances per combat round on full auto and enough ammunition for 16 full auto bursts.
Maximum damage happens once every 65 = 7776 attacks. Effect makes that much more likely, but with a base DM-8+skill I would not put much hope on that. Any spacecraft with armour 2 (or armour 3 with the house rule) is effectively immune.

Against a Tl15 small craft with no armour simply doing 15 points of damage is enough for a critical and you have a better than average chance of achieving that.
Sorry? Against tiny small craft any damage leads to sustained damage crits, but that has nothing to do with TL?


Field Catalogue does change a few things but as it introduces a system arguably it is the CSC that is "out of line". It is the explosive rounds that add to the damage (the default weapon is 6D) and to be honest HEAP ammunition in the CSC is a bit pathetic for the extra cost. As to range a 25mm cannon should be out to 2.5km rather than 1km.
Field Catalogue auto-cannon are a mess.
Why would "explosive" ammo add +3D damage over HE?
Why would a 25 mm auto-cannon do as much damage as a 40 mm auto-cannon, with better AP?
Why would a 40 mm auto-cannon have three times the range of a 60 mm auto-cannon?
Why would they all have almost the same damage and penetration?

Light auto-cannon:
In CSC effective range is 1 km, long range is 2 km, and extreme range is 4 km.
In FG effective range is 2.5 km, long range is 5 km, and extreme range is 10 km.

Medium auto-cannon:
In CSC effective range is 1 km, long range is 2 km, and extreme range is 4 km.
In FG effective range is 10 km, long range is 20 km, and extreme range is 40 km.

Is direct fire with small calibre cannon at 40 km (25 miles) reasonable?


High Guard has specific rules for ground scale weapons mounted on mini pop-up turrets rather than using vehicle turrets. If you want to free hand it out of an airlock you could still use a tripod of course.
Smaller Weapons never use hardpoints or firmpoints, nor spacecraft scale turrets.
 
A lost Dt of payload would cost a MCr or two in lost revenue over a 40 year mortgage.
An extra gunner would cost a stateroom, life support, salary, and four Dt of lost payload revenue, so perhaps MCr 5 over 40 years.
The obvious alternative would be a few missile racks on a fixed mount. MCr 2.35 per hardpoint, but no lost payload revenue, no needed gunner, and no range limitation.
Yes you can invest MCr for "real" space weapons up front, or you can invest in smaller weapons and pay the cost over 40 years in lost revenue. 1 Ton is just over 1 MCr for a jump 1 ship in opportunity freight cost.

If you have real weapons then you need a real Gunner to fire them so if you are dedicating crew to this you need extra stateroom space in either case. I was assuming secondary skills (or a droid). My crew has an Army Major who is security chief and in charge of ground ops. This gives them something to do before the ship is boarded.
If you use the extra range, you have to use the corresponding disadvantage in the same rule, IMHO.
That is not how the section is worded. Low gravity has specified affects. In the next paragraph it states low and zero-g doubles extreme range. Later no atmosphere doubles extended range again and this combined with the range increase for low and zero-g. It does not say that there are penalties to hit for firing in zero-g.
The smart tracker only gives a benefit after the first hit. The first hit has to be achieved at base DM-8 for range, DM-2 for lost dogfight, DM+2 for ground weapon, +Gunner, +Vacc. You really need a good gunner...
Also true, as I say it is possible, but the VRF Gauss gun is there for other reasons (armoured boarding infantry, chewing up unarmoured ships or providing covering fire on dust-off.
Why would a CPPG not reduce AP?
I do not see any special rule for CPPGs?
No, just an interpretation. As the Plasma Torpedo has the same damage profile and AP maybe it is a parameter of plasma and ships are as vulnerable to high temperature gas as thin skinned armoured vehicles.
Any ship with a spacecraft turret will chew you up from stand-off range.
Yep. Best surrender to or run from those.
While I agree, that is a house rule. No problem, just making it explicit.
I agree it's a good choice against vacc suited intruders but at space scale with damage 1-2 AP 1 at a few km it isn't very scary.
A TL-12 ultra-light fighter with armour 3 would just ignore it...
Ground scale weapons divide damage by 10 before armour is deducted. Against space craft armour 12 no ground scale weapon short of nukes would do much.
Agreed, it is not its optimum use, but that doesn't mean that if you had it fitted for it's primary purpose that you cannot use it against small craft or that it won't be effective against lightly armoured or unarmoured small craft. For ships with 12 points of armour the majority of real space weapons won't touch them either.
Maximum damage happens once every 65 = 7776 attacks. Effect makes that much more likely, but with a base DM-8+skill I would not put much hope on that. Any spacecraft with armour 2 (or armour 3 with the house rule) is effectively immune.
Yep, very much edge condition but a small craft, that only has firm points, has only close range or adjacent range weapons. Adjacent vessels could well be within standard range or at worst long range at -2.
Sorry? Against tiny small craft any damage leads to sustained damage crits, but that has nothing to do with TL?
One of the assumptions from the original post was that the vehicle toughness rule form the Companion was in use (otherwise a even body pistol, can critical hit an unarmoured craft). This seems a sensible rule to enforce if you are going to use ground scale weapons on a ship.
Field Catalogue auto-cannon are a mess.
Why would "explosive" ammo add +3D damage over HE?
Why would a 25 mm auto-cannon do as much damage as a 40 mm auto-cannon, with better AP?
Why would a 40 mm auto-cannon have three times the range of a 60 mm auto-cannon?
Why would they all have almost the same damage and penetration?

Light auto-cannon:
In CSC effective range is 1 km, long range is 2 km, and extreme range is 4 km.
In FG effective range is 2.5 km, long range is 5 km, and extreme range is 10 km.

Medium auto-cannon:
In CSC effective range is 1 km, long range is 2 km, and extreme range is 4 km.
In FG effective range is 10 km, long range is 20 km, and extreme range is 40 km.

Is direct fire with small calibre cannon at 40 km (25 miles) reasonable?
YMMV
Smaller Weapons never use hardpoints or firmpoints, nor spacecraft scale turrets.
Weapons of up to 250 kilograms may be mounted on spacecraft using 0.25 tons per weapon. ...and they consume neither hardpoints nor firmpoints.

Small weapons with a mass of more than 250 kilograms consume an amount of space equal to their mass, to a minimum of one ton. These must
be mounted in turrets (if they mass one ton or less) or fixed mounts and consume no Power.

(HG p40).

Smaller weapons of 250 kg or less do not use Hard or Firmpoints, larger weapons do.
 
If future publications give the option, I'll have a go at designing a more perfect quarter tonne space based grounded heavy weapon system.


scientist-meme-9.jpg
 
Yes you can invest MCr for "real" space weapons up front, or you can invest in smaller weapons and pay the cost over 40 years in lost revenue. 1 Ton is just over 1 MCr for a jump 1 ship in opportunity freight cost.
Higher mortgage or lower income works out roughly the same: lower cash flow and profit.

Real spacecraft weapons (missiles) are much stronger against spacecraft, for about the same effect on profitability.


If you have real weapons then you need a real Gunner to fire them so if you are dedicating crew to this you need extra stateroom space in either case. I was assuming secondary skills (or a droid). My crew has an Army Major who is security chief and in charge of ground ops. This gives them something to do before the ship is boarded.
Not with fixed mounts, the pilot can fire them without penalty. Missiles are not dependent on gunner skill.
Core, p166:
Weapons on board a spacecraft are fired by Travellers assigned to gunner duty. However, a pilot may fire any weapons in a single turret at DM-2 to the attack roll or weapons noted as being in fixed mounts (this is usually found on smaller craft that are not always large enough to accommodate turrets, such as fighters and shuttles).
Smaller weapons do need a real Gunner:
Core, p166:
• Firing a spacecraft-mounted weapon uses the Gunner skill.


That is not how the section is worded. Low gravity has specified affects. In the next paragraph it states low and zero-g doubles extreme range. Later no atmosphere doubles extended range again and this combined with the range increase for low and zero-g. It does not say that there are penalties to hit for firing in zero-g.
Low gravity imposes negative DMs at specified ranges, regardless of the weapons range bands.
Yes, you can shoot farther, but is becomes more difficult.


No, just an interpretation. As the Plasma Torpedo has the same damage profile and AP maybe it is a parameter of plasma and ships are as vulnerable to high temperature gas as thin skinned armoured vehicles.
The Plasma Torpedo is a massive space scale weapon (~4 m³, perhaps 4+ tonnes), the CPPG is a small map-portable weapon.
The Plasma Torpedo does 10 times more damage, they are not even remotely comparable.


Agreed, it is not its optimum use, but that doesn't mean that if you had it fitted for it's primary purpose that you cannot use it against small craft or that it won't be effective against lightly armoured or unarmoured small craft. For ships with 12 points of armour the majority of real space weapons won't touch them either.
Even beam lasers (1D damage) in triple turrets with a good gunner (hence Effect) will punch through armour 12 often enough. Not dividing the Effect by 10 is a massive advantage for space scale weapons.

Even so, 1D damage weapons are rarely used on spacecraft, as they are so weak.


Yep, very much edge condition but a small craft, that only has firm points, has only close range or adjacent range weapons. Adjacent vessels could well be within standard range or at worst long range at -2.
Sure, and DM-4 for 1-10 km (low gravity) and a DM-2 for lost dogfight as the ship will mostly suffer against smallcraft.


One of the assumptions from the original post was that the vehicle toughness rule form the Companion was in use (otherwise a even body pistol, can critical hit an unarmoured craft). This seems a sensible rule to enforce if you are going to use ground scale weapons on a ship.
Sorry, I missed that. Applying a rule addressing a specific problem in the vehicle system on spacecraft, when there already is a similar mechanism in place for spacecraft, seems unnecessary. (And a house rule, of course.)

Note that the "Built Tough" rule only applies to man-portable weapons that are not destructive, so neither CPPGs nor VRF Gauss Guns:
Companion, p111:
BUILT TOUGH
Vehicles and structures are built from strong and resilient materials. Against man portable weapons that are not Destructive, a vehicle is considered to have an extra amount of armour equal to the TL of its construction.


Weapons of up to 250 kilograms may be mounted on spacecraft using 0.25 tons per weapon. ...and they consume neither hardpoints nor firmpoints.

Small weapons with a mass of more than 250 kilograms consume an amount of space equal to their mass, to a minimum of one ton. These must
be mounted in turrets (if they mass one ton or less) or fixed mounts and consume no Power.

(HG p40).

Smaller weapons of 250 kg or less do not use Hard or Firmpoints, larger weapons do.
This was discussed during the 2016 beta, and clarified, e.g.:
3) Nope - as above. Keep in mind I have concerns about abuses here (because small weapons dont take up firmpoints or hardpoints slots. Matt said he prefers not to insert mechanics for this. I had recommended that we can simply state each small weapon (or group of them taking up to 1 ton) takes up a firmpoint (or hardpoint) slot; but he said he would put in some Refree-warning textbox about abuses.
https://forum.mongoosepublishing.com/threads/fixed-mounts.118004/post-894854

As the text wasn't substantially changed in '22, I assume it works the same.
 
Higher mortgage or lower income works out roughly the same: lower cash flow and profit.
Yep, that was my point. Using a fixed, mount real weapon is going to cost you money as much as losing 1 ton of revenue.
Real spacecraft weapons (missiles) are much stronger against spacecraft, for about the same effect on profitability.
Hmm, less sure about that. We have already spoken in another thread how ineffective small missile batteries are since they can be shot down with point defence. You are probably going to want a triple so they have to at least shoot down more than one and triple Missile racks are several MCr and the replenishment costs over 40 years might well be more than that. We concluded that container missiles were probably the best bet as even though they are one-shot that single salvo has lots of spares.

In close range dogfights (if you chose to use those rules) then facing will be important. This doesn't matter for turrets, but fixed mounts may not be pointing where you need them to be.
Not with fixed mounts, the pilot can fire them without penalty. Missiles are not dependent on gunner skill.

Smaller weapons do need a real Gunner:
Ship mounted weapons need someone assigned to gunner duty, that person does not necessarily require Gunner Skill. That not withstanding Gunner skill covers firing Ships Turrets (which would cover weapons over 250Kg that need to be mounted in a ships turret). Heavy Weapon (Vehicle) covers the Heavy weapons we are talking about (except the CPPG which uses Heavy Weapon(Portable). These are are 250Kg or under and are in pop-up remote turrets.
Low gravity imposes negative DMs at specified ranges, regardless of the weapons range bands.
I don't think we will agree this, Low Gravity is not Zero-Gravity. The relevant section covering penalties to hit at different range bands mentions Low-Gravity only. The section covering extended range talks about Low-Gravity and Zero-Gravity. I am happy with my interpretation. Call it a house rule if you wish.
The Plasma Torpedo is a massive space scale weapon (~4 m³, perhaps 4+ tonnes), the CPPG is a small map-portable weapon.
The Plasma Torpedo does 10 times more damage, they are not even remotely comparable.
Which I why I questioned the CPPG AP10 being as effective as the Plasma Torpedo AP10. I think any Ground scale weapons AP should be reduced by a factor of 10 regardless of whether it is DD or not.
Even beam lasers (1D damage) in triple turrets with a good gunner (hence Effect) will punch through armour 12 often enough. Not dividing the Effect by 10 is a massive advantage for space scale weapons.
Yep a MCr2.5 weapon system is better than one that is a 10th of its price and a quarter of its tonnage.
Sorry, I missed that. Applying a rule addressing a specific problem in the vehicle system on spacecraft, when there already is a similar mechanism in place for spacecraft, seems unnecessary. (And a house rule, of course.)
What is the similar rule for spacecraft, they have no inherent toughness. Even dividing damage by 10 still means a lucky hit from a Body Pistol can bring down a small craft. You can walk up to a MCr7.2 Gig on the landing pad and fire two full auto bursts from a Cr410 SMG into it and totally destroy it. You are all but guaranteed 6 hits with good effect in 2 turns each doing at least 1 point damage plus a critical. As the most likely result is Hull for an extra D6 Damage, even a single full auto burst is very likely to be terminal. That seems ridiculous. The anti-personnel and built-tough rules reduce the chance of this anomaly.
Note that the "Built Tough" rule only applies to man-portable weapons that are not destructive, so neither CPPGs nor VRF Gauss Guns:
Yep. Saw it for the CPPGs, had overlooked it wasn't applicable for any of the other weapons since none of them are portable. In that case there is less justification for using expensive plasma rounds for the VRF GG as 4d6 will regularly do more than the 10 points of damage needed to hurt an unarmoured small craft.
This was discussed during the 2016 beta, and clarified, e.g.:

https://forum.mongoosepublishing.com/threads/fixed-mounts.118004/post-894854

As the text wasn't substantially changed in '22, I assume it works the same.
I think the wording in the 2022 update is explicit enough for me. YMMV.
 
Last edited:
And now I am going to gauss gun down my own argument :(

Ground based weapons fired in space use the ground based weapon fire rules since the ranges etc. are based on those. That also means they should suffer from that pesky speed modifiers rule. Vehicular weapons use speed bands rather than the basic -1 per 10m/s but a fighter zipping past will likely be in the upper end of those bands. A ship on a closing course or a stern chase however may have little relative speed.

Swings and roundabouts.
 
That depends on how they're used, and under what conditions.

The easiest to assess would be energy weapon systems.

You could ask why their range and accuracy is so limited under Terran gravity and in an atmosphere.
 
I'd say that unless the weapon is energy based, or uses magnetic coils, you have to factor in that A> the ammunition might not work so good with no oxygen to burn, B> For lower TL stuff, you are going to get some serious recoil if you use it in 0g, and C> the velocity (even with guass weapons), is not going to hit anything at space craft speeds and distances*
Railguns fire at a fraction of light speed, that is several magnitudes higher than what I'd expect from anything ground based (except for very large orbital defense weapons).

I did allow my players to mount 4 VRF Gauss guns in a double ship turret however, but that was more for landing zone clearance and intimidation of locals.

* I of course continue to believe, that dogfights in space are as likely as stumbling upon Santa and the Easter Bunny, crushed under the same piece of space junk, in your back yard, on February the 29th under a full solar eclipse.
 
Last edited:
I'd say that unless the weapon is energy based, or uses magnetic coils, you have to factor in that A> the ammunition might not work so good with no oxygen to burn, B> For lower TL stuff, you are going to get some serious recoil if you use it in 0g, and C> the velocity (even with guass weapons), is not going to hit anything at space craft speeds and distances*
Most projectile propellants contains their own source of oxygen as otherwise it would not burn quickly enough within the cartridge, in vacuum they should actually perform better as they are not having to force air out of the way as the projectile moves down the barrel and to the target. Recoil will be an issue for hand held guns but compared to the mass of a ship it is going to be negligible.

Velocity and range are going to be issues. Against anything other than ships closing to board they are going to be useless. In a stern chase the crossing speed might not be too bad and if they are going to board they will have had to match speed anyway.
Railguns fire at a fraction of light speed, that is several magnitudes higher than what I'd expect from anything ground based (except for very large orbital defense weapons).

I did allow my players to mount 4 VRF Gauss guns in a double ship turret however, but that was more for landing zone clearance and intimidation of locals.
Yes, these would primarily be for ground support use and Adjacent range boarding actions.
* I of course continue to believe, that dogfights in space are as likely as stumbling upon Santa and the Easter Bunny, crushed under the same piece of space junk, in your back yard, on February the 29th under a full solar eclipse.
I tend to agree, especially if you use vector movement, you might achieve at best the classic millennium falcon "drift lazily to the left".
 
Smart bullets.

Though you'd have to reprogramme the ballistic interception point.
It depends on how the smart bullet operates. Anything that relies on aerodynamic drag (fins or other control surfaces) won't work in a non-atmosphere. Those that rely on selective rotation to take advantage of eccentric gravity effects won't work in non-gravity.

Smart space missiles can change thrust (as they are capable of thrusting for their entire range). Unless the ground weapon projectile is accelerated after it leaves the barrel then it can't be steered this way. Most projectiles don't have the mass budget for a terminal guidance thruster as well. Ground launched missiles tend to work on a boost-coast profile once the thruster is expended and rely on aerodynamic control surfaces to steer. Selectively triggering a later stage manoeuvring thruster is hard to do, though some large anti-ship missiles do perform exotic terminal manoeuvres to foil counter measures.

Of course space-magic allows ground-magic as well :)
 
I think that fifteen hundred metres a second muzzle velocity is hypervelocity in Traveller.

I rather doubt that firing your heavy machinegun at another, accelerating, spacecraft will hit, except at really close range.

However, point defence has potential.

Missiles, as opposed to torpedoes, should be vulnerable to a hail storm of bullets.

With tiny rocket motors, self correction seems plausible.
 
Missiles, as opposed to torpedoes, should be vulnerable to a hail storm of bullets.
Unless the missile is a fighter in a dogfight, and then you can't hit it with a big ship at all... Oh, wait, sorry, did I forget to mention what I think of dogfights?
 
Back
Top