Kinetic/Projectile weapons for starships

[Balfuset790]

Forgive me, firstly, if this is a topic that has been discussed elsewhere on these forums. I'm a new member,a dn new to Traveller (not only the Mongoose release, but the game as a whole) and hsve been looking through ship creation.

I can understand the flavour behind the core Traveller rules, where energy weapons reign supreme in space combat, however I was idly curious if there were any sourcebooks or home-brewed rules out there that covered alternatives for science-fiction settings where kinetic weapons were still used as ship-board weapons.

What I'm thinking is something along the lines of the new BSG, with rapid fire autocannons on the Viper fighters and heavy duty rail/coilguns mounted to broadside batteries on large capital ships, probably with things in between. I've already considered treating a Pulse Laser as the stats for a basic slug throwing autocannon but scaling for a new plaer/GM to make the weapons interesting, balanced and with different utility is the tricky part.

 

[Nerhesi]

You will actually find projectile weapons in Highguard. Rail guns - both fighter carrier varieties and capital ship bays and even Spinal Rail Guns! (I believe this last one is in trillion credit squadron)

 

[Balfuset790]

Ah, that's perfect! I hadn't gotten around to reading High Guard yet but that does exactly what I want... though I may need to create a few Long Range railguns for some ships to give them an effective range of Medium rather than short for some capital ship long range artillery.

 

[Nerhesi]

You can also do that actually!

High-Tech level weapons on starships.

Increasing optimal range by 1 step is +1 TL, so they'd go from Short to Medium That allows them to shoot to up to Very Long Range (with a penalty).

 

[Infojunky]

You can also do that actually!

High-Tech level weapons on starships.

Increasing optimal range by 1 step is +1 TL, so they'd go from Short to Medium That allows them to shoot to up to Very Long Range (with a penalty).

Damn, you beat me to this answer.

There is no reason not to include them at all.

 

[Balfuset790]

On another note, if using High Guard, does the range modifier table in there for optimum range and DM bonus overrule the one in the Corebook for the weapons in there, Pulse Lasers and the like?

Obviously I can run it however I want but is the intent that all Short range weapons are comparable and use the same table row?

 

[Jak Nazryth]

Also be very aware that BSG (and other cinematic space combat) is at range..."There's the ship.. I see him! Shoot before he gets out of range!
Most scenes in an average BSG fight scene is maybe 10 kilometers... maybe...
In Traveller, particular in High Guard, "short range" is "1 hex" or, 1,250 kilometers (776 miles)
Medium is up to 8 hexes, or 10,000 km.

Just imagine having your ship with a rail gun hovering over Atlanta Georgia and shooting at the Staten Island Ferry in New York City and hitting it... while it's moving!
That's short range in Traveller!

 

[Nerhesi]

Especially when you consider, in small/single scale ship combat, a large bay will be rolling 6d6 to hit, which means you can pretty much guarantee a single hit at least by grouping that 5 and 6 together for an 11 on the raw dice alone!

The only issue is that in single/small scale ship combat, you are still only doing 3d6 - armor in damage, so it may have issues vs highly armoured targets. But move to barrage rules and now you have a Medium range, 18 damage monster (granted single weapon damage is still 3 but that is a lot of damage still).

 

[Condottiere]

1. Railguns have potential since if they aren't defined as being a drain on the power plant you could stick them into a (large) weapons pod.

2. Ortillery mass driver has the potential to be a mini spinal mount, if you can adjust accuracy, and since you have to close the range, armour up.

 

[Jak Nazryth]

Also...
Although never specifically addressed in Mongoose rules, it is implied in the first sentence in High Guard page 48..."Rail guns are huge gauss weapons..." doing 3d6 base damage in a barbette, 3d6x4 in a small bay and 3d6x6 in a large bay.
But since they are "Huge Gauss Weapons" IMTU they are also armor piercing, since that's the "built-in" property of all the man-sized guass guns. (again, not stated in the official rules)
That gives rail guns an edge to make up for their short range and limited ammo.

 

[Balfuset790]

Huh, interesting thoughts from everyone so far.

Question is though, in MTU I'm planning on doing away with energy weapons of all sorts and using railguns and missiles as the only shipboard weaponry. Would any changes to the damage figures of railguns be needed to balance matters in that case do we think?

 

[phavoc]

Huh, interesting thoughts from everyone so far.

Question is though, in MTU I'm planning on doing away with energy weapons of all sorts and using railguns and missiles as the only shipboard weaponry. Would any changes to the damage figures of railguns be needed to balance matters in that case do we think?

I would say no. There shouldn't be any reason to do so. This is essentially taking today's capabilities for weaponry and projecting them into space.

The only real question will be creating smaller railgun weapons to mount on smaller craft (assuming you want to give them offensive capabilities beyond missiles only). If you do opt to make smaller projectile weaponry, you'll need to account for a heavier weapons mount to accommodate your magnetic accelerators as well as your ammunition.

You also could add some interesting capabilities into your rounds. Add-ons like nuclear-charges for the larger ship rounds, or adding a gryojet-like capability to give ships long-range sniping capability (with reason... say ships flying a specific course, stations that are either geo-stationary or orbiting a specific path).

 

[Infojunky]

I was fooling around with this idea earlier today, and you might want to look at Sandcasters. Especially as lighter mounts in light of the Tech Level "improvement" guide lines in High Guard.

My thinking is that the base Sandcast is basically a large low velocity gun in its base conformation, and with Tech level improvements in both it's mechanism as well as the types of munitions available.

You have you basic Sand, Chaff and Pebble. I have been considering Disposable Sensor buoys, Jammers, Mines, Deadfall ordinance, Flares etc. etc... So it isn't a push to see a "range improved" Sandcaster as multi-role munitions delivery system.

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

You ever consider doing a Battlestar Galactica campaign with the Traveller Rules? Basically Tech level 7 except for space travel. The "Jump Drive" used in the New BSG is actually a Teleport Drive according to the Mongoose Traveller rules. Then there are the Cylons, I think Cylons would actually be low Tech Level 8, no laser rifles yet, but there are things being produced by Boston Dynamics that have a "Cylon" look to me, they walk, and if properly equipped, they could probably shoot, though no where near as smart as a human. realistically I think AI should be tech level 8 instead of 16 or 17 as current Traveller rules state.

 

[Jak Nazryth]

Huh, interesting thoughts from everyone so far.

Question is though, in MTU I'm planning on doing away with energy weapons of all sorts and using railguns and missiles as the only shipboard weaponry. Would any changes to the damage figures of railguns be needed to balance matters in that case do we think?

Why would you do away with energy weapons? Only the new piece of crap "re-imagined" by Ronnie Moore removed the advanced weapons. The real BSG had plenty of high energy weapons.
THAT show was awesome. I had every action figure, all the toys, and even the BSG lunch box. Me and all my friends in school wanted to be just like Dirk Benedict. We actually got in fights of who got to play Starbuck! No one wanted to be Apollo.
Oh, and one more thing...
STARBUCK IS A FRACKING DUDE!!! lol

 

[AndrewW]

STARBUCK IS A FRACKING DUDE!!! lol

What about Boomer and Kane? (Note I happen to agree with you.)

 

[Balfuset790]

Huh, interesting thoughts from everyone so far.

Question is though, in MTU I'm planning on doing away with energy weapons of all sorts and using railguns and missiles as the only shipboard weaponry. Would any changes to the damage figures of railguns be needed to balance matters in that case do we think?

Why would you do away with energy weapons? Only the new piece of crap "re-imagined" by Ronnie Moore removed the advanced weapons. The real BSG had plenty of high energy weapons.
THAT show was awesome. I had every action figure, all the toys, and even the BSG lunch box. Me and all my friends in school wanted to be just like Dirk Benedict. We actually got in fights of who got to play Starbuck! No one wanted to be Apollo.
Oh, and one more thing...
STARBUCK IS A FRACKING DUDE!!! lol

Arguments about BSG aside (as there are a number of other settings that have no form of enegry weapons), I've never had any great love of them in science fiction. The idea of designers throwing out a tried and tested method of fighting in favour of something that's far less efficient seems...silly.

Lasers require huge amounts of power to operate when compared to a conventional slugthrower. Given fuel and power consumption is at a premium on a starship, why waste it on something with a more efficient equivalent?

Equally, the easiest way to detect an object in space is heat emissions, slugthrowers give off far less heat than a laser,making it harder to detect something using them over a laser.

And, well, the typical 'pew pew' image of the rapid-fire pulsing laser 'machine gun' just... feels ridiculous to me.

 

[Condottiere]

1. Railguns probably have lots of unused potential.

2. An interesting variant would be a cannon launched missile, and sacks of sand.

3. Sandcaster pebbles as very high yield barrages sounds promising.

 

[Balfuset790]

1. Railguns probably have lots of unused potential.

No doubt, especially on smaller scale craft. As it seems in the universe presented in the books that they are working on the assumption of huge cannons mounted to the broadsides of capital ships, whereas rapid fire autocannons on small fighters armed with armour-piercing rounds would wreak havoc with ships at short ranges if targetted well.

2. An interesting variant would be a cannon launched missile, and sacks of sand.

I don't personally see how a cannon launched missile system would be any more or less useful than the missile racks presented in the base rules, care to elaborate on that?

3. Sandcaster pebbles as very high yield barrages sounds promising.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but what good, realistically, does shooting low-velocity payloads of sand and rocks at people do? I'm still trying to figure out how these have any benefit in the basic rules, let alone as an offensive weapon... I understand that they help prevent/lessen laser damage, I'm just not sure on the logic behind it...

 

[Condottiere]

1. Depends on the actual composition of the armour, which in our case, comes down to raw strength rather than possible composite layers.

2. Some tank cannons can launch anti-tank and anti-air missiles; rather than create new ammunition, trying to adapt railguns to accommodate existing munitions would allow them a greater flexibility in both usage and the ability to simplify the logistics.

3. The observation of sandcasters is only to point out opportunities in the event that for some reason or other the range of weaponry is restricted.