High Guard Weapons Question

[EldritchFire]

Just a few questions about weapons in High Guard (2e):

• Aren't fusion weapons supposed to have the radiation tag? The fusion barbette has it, but the fusion bays don't
• Why are ion cannon's damage listed as nD x10 instead of nDD? Isn't it the same thing, and keeps with the preexisting nomenclature?
• Railguns are TL12? Really?! The railgun in the CSC is TL 9 (pg. 132)
• No turret/fixed mount railguns?

 

[EldritchFire]

Another question that was brought up in a different thread, can multiple weapons of the same type be fired as one even if they're in different turrets/barbettes/bays?

Page 24 says: "Up to three weapons may be mounted on a fixed mount (small craft have additional limitations), while turrets can mount one, two or three weapons, depending on their type. These weapons need not be of the same type but only one type may be used in the same attack.

If two or more weapons are of the same type, they may be fired together. One attack roll is made for all weapons being fired, but each additional weapon adds +1 per damage dice to the final damage total."

I assumed that the second paragraph was dependent on the first, but it was suggested elsewhere that they're related but independent paragraphs.

If I have three turrets with pulse lasers, can I fire them all at one target, with one attack roll, and 2D+4 damage?

My theory is that since each turret requires its own gunner, they can't be fired together, and the second paragraph only applies to two or more weapons in the same mount (fixed or turret).

Thoughts?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Aren't fusion weapons supposed to have the radiation tag? The fusion barbette has it, but the fusion bays don't

Probably. I agree this should be corrected.

Why are ion cannon's damage listed as nD x10 instead of nDD? Isn't it the same thing, and keeps with the preexisting nomenclature?

There is a functional difference (adding Effect). Destructive refers to explosive damage "blasting apart small vehicles with a single shot", no Ion weapon can do that.

Railguns are TL12? Really?! The railgun in the CSC is TL 9 (pg. 132)
No turret/fixed mount railguns?

A CSC rail gun has a range of a few km, a spacecraft rail gun has a range of a few thousand km. In order to hit a manoeuvring spacecraft at that range we would have to accelerate the munitions to a relativistic velocity, that might require a bigger and more complex device?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

If I have three turrets with pulse lasers, can I fire them all at one target, with one attack roll, and 2D+4 damage?

My theory is that since each turret requires its own gunner, they can't be fired together, and the second paragraph only applies to two or more weapons in the same mount (fixed or turret).

Thoughts?

I agree.

The result of a somewhat confused discussion in beta:

Therefore my stance is that:

Fire all identical weapons in a single mount together. This would apply to:

Spacecraft turrets with double/triple pulse or beam lasers.
Battledress linked weaponry.
Small weapons on spacecraft that individually weigh under 250kg, and are grouped up to 4 weapons per mount.

So to me, the rules about firing "linked" are implicit to there being rules about being "mounted together". But yes, some clarity would go a long way.

http://forum.mongoosepublishing.com/viewtopic.php?p=894854#p894854

 

[Jeraa]

A CSC rail gun has a range of a few km, a spacecraft rail gun has a range of a few thousand km. In order to hit a manoeuvring spacecraft at that range we would have to accelerate the munitions to a relativistic velocity, that might require a bigger and more complex device?

Mass drivers bays are described as ortillery railguns, have the same range as a normal railgun, and are TL 8. If they can do it, why can't normal railgun bays? The only real difference is the Auto rating. Maybe making a auto-fire capable railgun can't be done until TL 12. Unless railgun bays are actually just multiple, single shot railguns fires in a volley and the Auto rating just represents the combined firepower in which case there is no good reason for the TL difference.

The starship-sized railguns in the High Guard 1e are TL 9. That is probably what they should be.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

A CSC rail gun has a range of a few km, a spacecraft rail gun has a range of a few thousand km. In order to hit a manoeuvring spacecraft at that range we would have to accelerate the munitions to a relativistic velocity, that might require a bigger and more complex device?

Mass drivers bays are described as ortillery railguns, have the same range as a normal railgun, and are TL 8. If they can do it, why can't normal railgun bays? The only real difference is the Auto rating. Maybe making a auto-fire capable railgun can't be done until TL 12. Unless railgun bays are actually just multiple, single shot railguns fires in a volley and the Auto rating just represents the combined firepower in which case there is no good reason for the TL difference.

The starship-sized railguns in the High Guard 1e are TL 9. That is probably what they should be.

Mass Driver Bay: Also known as an ortillery railgun, this weapon fires large, solid projectiles at speeds optimised for smashing planetary targets.

Railgun Bay: Though the rounds a railgun uses are low technology armour penetrators, the weapon itself uses electromagnetic forces to accelerate them to sizeable fractions of the speed of light, delivering a high dose of kinetic energy to the target.

Different beasts. Both have too short range to be very useful.


Ortillery bays should probably have the same malus in space combat as the ortillery missile?

Ortillery Missile: Specifically designed for planetary bombardment, ortillery missiles are powerful but too slow to be used effectively as anti–ship weapons unless the target is not expecting an attack. Ortillery missiles suffer DM-6 to hit any moving target.

 

[kevinknight]

I'm a bit confused by somethings as well...

Missile Turrets - description says that each rack holds 12 missiles; in a triple turret you can have 3 racks
Does that mean you have 36 missiles in a triple turret? that takes up 1 ton... when the description of missiles says that 12 take up 1 ton of cargo space...

High Technology - I read a thread below that seems to state that a lot of the staple ship board weapons since CT High Guard are now out (part accel, plasma, fusion turrets, meson bays, etc.) after almost 40 years of being in the game. Is this true?

 

[Jeraa]

Different beasts. Both have too short range to be very useful.

Their usefulness doesn't matter. Both are listed as starship weapons, both have a range of Short. They are both railguns. Yet, for some reason, one is only available 4 TLs later than other vehicle and starship mounted railguns.

But with their range being so very short, that does bring up something. Why would anyone bother to create a TL 12railgun with such a short range when there are far better options available at TL 12? You bring it back down to TL 8 like the mass driver, and the only other weapon options are missile racks and torpedoes. A TL 8 railgun gives you and actual weapon, one that is quickly replaced at TL 9 with lasers.

TL 12 railguns (with the given stats) make no sense. There is no good reason to use them. TL 8 ones (that are quickly replaced) make much more sense and would actually be used (because you have no other option except missiles).

Ortillery bays should probably have the same malus in space combat as the ortillery missile?

Ortillery Missile: Specifically designed for planetary bombardment, ortillery missiles are powerful but too slow to be used effectively as anti–ship weapons unless the target is not expecting an attack. Ortillery missiles suffer DM-6 to hit any moving target.

Not necessarily. Railgun rounds are most likely fired at much higher velocities than missiles. The only thing we know about that is that they are "optimized for smashing planetary targets". That gives no indication, however.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

High Technology - I read a thread below that seems to state that a lot of the staple ship board weapons since CT High Guard are now out (part accel, plasma, fusion turrets, meson bays, etc.) after almost 40 years of being in the game. Is this true?

Look at the Strike Carrier on p192.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

TL 12 railguns (with the given stats) make no sense. There is no good reason to use them. TL 8 ones (that are quickly replaced) make much more sense and would actually be used (because you have no other option except missiles).

We are now supposed to be between TL7 and TL8.

The USN is experimenting with prototypes of TL8 rail guns: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun

They can perhaps reach a muzzle velocity of 3 km/s, perhaps a thousandth of what would be necessary for a space combat capable rail gun, but probably good enough for ortillery. At 3 km/s it would take ~5 minutes to reach a target 1000 km away, a spacecraft is long gone by then.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

High Technology - I read a thread below that seems to state that a lot of the staple ship board weapons since CT High Guard are now out (part accel, plasma, fusion turrets, meson bays, etc.) after almost 40 years of being in the game. Is this true?

Look at the Strike Carrier on p192.

Sorry, old version of HighGuard.

Look at the Strike Carrier on p200 and the Fleet Carrier on p204.

 

[Jeraa]

TL 12 railguns (with the given stats) make no sense. There is no good reason to use them. TL 8 ones (that are quickly replaced) make much more sense and would actually be used (because you have no other option except missiles).

We are now supposed to be between TL7 and TL8.

The USN is experimenting with prototypes of TL8 rail guns: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun

They can perhaps reach a muzzle velocity of 3 km/s, perhaps a thousandth of what would be necessary for a space combat capable rail gun, but probably good enough for ortillery. At 3 km/s it would take ~5 minutes to reach a target 1000 km away, a spacecraft is long gone by then.

Real life numbers mean nothing in a fictional game. But still, Short range (the range of railguns) maxes at 1250 km, and space combat rounds are 6 minutes long. Railgun rounds hit the round they are fired (as they have no flight time like missiles). So our experimental railgun is capable of sending a round across the needed amount of space in the needed amount of time.

Besides, if you read the description of the railgun bay, it fires projectiles at "sizeable fraction of the speed of light". I don't know where you are from, but around here 1/100,000 (or 3km/sec, light speed being 300,000km/sec) of the speed of light isn't a "sizable fraction". So Traveller universe railguns aren't anywhere near the same as railguns we currently have. You can't compare the two.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Real life numbers mean nothing in a fictional game.

I would disagree.

In the words of LBB0:

- All changes should be rational, logical, and scientifically sound (after a!l, Traveller is a science fiction role-playing game)

But still, Short range (the range of railguns) maxes at 1250 km, and space combat rounds are 6 minutes long. Railgun rounds hit the round they are fired (as they have no flight time like missiles). So our experimental railgun is capable of sending a round across the needed amount of space in the needed amount of time.

But could not hit a moving ship. A ship accelerating at 1G could have moved 640 km in any direction during the hang time of the round.

Besides, if you read the description of the railgun bay, it fires projectiles at "sizeable fraction of the speed of light". I don't know where you are from, but around here 1/100,000 (or 3km/sec, light speed being 300,000km/sec) of the speed of light isn't a "sizable fraction". So Traveller universe railguns aren't anywhere near the same as railguns we currently have. You can't compare the two.

Quite, so Traveller rail guns are not TL8, and should not be TL8. Which is the point I tried to make when I posted the descriptions.