Known Issues/Playtesting Wanted

[AKAramis]

One thing I'm fiddling with is expanding the Law Level of worlds so they can ban things other than weapons. My current lists are: Weapons, Drugs, Information, Technology, Travel and Psionics. So, a Law-9 world that bans Drugs might forbid entry to anyone using anagathics, and smuggling advanced medicines onto that planet would be very profitable.

I *think* there was a prototype of something like that in T4 which might prove a useful reference/resource/baseline/idea-generation springboard. ?Universal Law Profile - I think it was called? Dunno, just a suggestion as a starting point... :shock: :?

Grufty: Wrong edition.

Classic Traveller: DGP's Grand Census
MegaTraveller: DGP's World Builder's Handbook
(both are the same system for expanding UWP's.)

The expanded details can be reverse engineered really easily:

The tech code breakdowns were almost always small adjustments to primary tech code, and categories as per the CT Tech Table (which reprints in MegaTraveller)

The Law breakdown was 2d6-7+LL for each subfield. Using allowed Weapons, Movement, Privacy, Dissent, Intoxicants, and Punishments with base LL remaining chance of police encounter per four hours (as per CT/MT) sounds like a really good baseline to me. Same process, different fields.

Government breakdown defined structure, subtypes, branches, etc... definitely belongs in a supplement, and needs to be redeveloped whole cloth to avoid copyright infringement.

The social breakdowns were interesting, but like government, redevelop from scratch.

The Religion profile again was useful, but like Gov't and Social, needs to be redeveloped from scratch.

 

[Libris]

Looking over the guns in more detail I think that there needs to be more differentiation between gun types. I just feel the current descriptions and stats are too, well, seventies...

An FN P90 or HK MP7 has much superior armour penetration to, say, an HK MP5, but the terminal effects are the similar. The P90 round will penetrate your flak jacket but the MP5 might not but if you are unarmoured the P90 will not do significantly more damage to you.

Think of them as option advanced gun rules.

Normally armour piercing rounds and the like simply have reduced armour by a percentage but I think that a simpler AP-3, AP-4 would work better.
Where the AP-3 round subtracts 3 from AV and the AP-4 subtracts 4.
Low velocity rounds like pistols could just double armour.

Example
Mag Mag
TL Rng Dmg Auto Wt Mag Rec Rel Wt. Cost Cost Notes
SMG 6 S 6 Auto-4 3.0 30 2 2 0.5 300 20
PDW 8 S 6 Auto-4 3.0 50 2 2 0.5 750 40 AP-3

Superficially they're similar but for two tech levels later you get a similar gun (an MP5K isn't that dissimilar to an MP7) that has more ammo and punches straight through a flak jacket.

 

[SableWyvern]

Looking over the guns in more detail I think that there needs to be more differentiation between gun types. I just feel the current descriptions and stats are too, well, seventies...

An FN P90 or HK MP7 has much superior armour penetration to, say, an HK MP5, but the terminal effects are the similar. The P90 round will penetrate your flak jacket but the MP5 might not but if you are unarmoured the P90 will not do significantly more damage to you.

Think of them as option advanced gun rules.

Normally armour piercing rounds and the like simply have reduced armour by a percentage but I think that a simpler AP-3, AP-4 would work better.
Where the AP-3 round subtracts 3 from AV and the AP-4 subtracts 4.
Low velocity rounds like pistols could just double armour.

First up, with the current rules, increased armour penetration and increased damage are the same thing, so modelling an armour-piercing round would require a major overhaul of the entire damage and armour system.

Second ... I'm not convinced that getting into arguments over the stopping power of this round over that round is ultimately going to be productive. If the game covered 20th Century tech, I'd want to see finer detail. Given that Traveller runs the gamut from clubs and sharp sticks through to lightweight plasma rifles, I don't think we need to be making distinctions between different generations of 5.56 ammo or the like.

I wouldn't mind seeing an assault shotgun, an advanced shotgun (something like the 20mmLAG), some blackpowder weapons ... things that actually fill gaps in the current list. Some proper rules for use of shot and flechette ammo (ooh, and laser attenuation) might not go astray either. That said, I think the weapon list as it stands offers a satisfactory range of choices. Certainly, the kind of wider scope you're suggesting seems to me that it would fit better into a supplement.

(Edit: Oops. I didn't think that through. I note that the armour reduction values you mention are not the same as increased damage. My bad. I partially withdraw my objections -- I'm still not convinced it's a necessary change, but it is a relatively simple one with some merit.) 8)

 

[hdrider67]

------------------------------------
Armor on the lower end seems just about right.

TL14 combat armor and Battle Dress almost automatically defeat a Gauss Rifle or pretty much any small arm lesser than a Plasma rifle. I know these armor types are tough but maybe the Gauss rifle is a little underpowered?

-----------------------------------
Energy weapons: What is the vl of a power pack? Is the pack bulky as in older versions?

The heavy energy weapons have no magazine rating. Is it a single shot per power pack? If so, I'm not sure how viable they would really be in combat, esp as a standard Marine firearm.

-----------------------------------

I'd like to withdraw my armor comments. I ran a few duels; just simple no dodging affairs with handguns and cloth armor. Yikes did opponents go down fast. In the four runs, three of the four dropped went down on the first shot (END-0) and the last only took two and this is WITH armor.

I didn't realize how much gun combat levels and other mods made such a huge difference. Some of the hits with a pistol would have cracked battle dress.

 

[Libris]

(Edit: Oops. I didn't think that through. I note that the armour reduction values you mention are not the same as increased damage. My bad. I partially withdraw my objections -- I'm still not convinced it's a necessary change, but it is a relatively simple one with some merit.) 8)

Thanks.

I think it works quite well and lends a reason why certain weapons get introduced. There really should never be a reason (excepting price, availability, tradition and law level of course ) to use an earlier tech weapon. There has to be a reason why a weapon gets introduced. Unfortunately, I can only use the last 100 years as a guide to this and reason out why the ACR was introduced, why it was replaced with the gauss rifle etc.

It's not about getting into arguments about calibres more generic groups of weapons. The system is too broad to discuss the .45 vs 9mm; they both weigh about a kilo and are both autopistols, albeit without the automatic fire; where'd that come from? That said with a simple damage mod you could model it. That, on the other hand, is going too far.

The problem I'm seeing with Mongoose Traveller is that the weapon section looks as if it has just been cut and pasted from the LBB!

We have the opportunity here to update a chapter, keep the flavour, but tailor it to today's expectations. Any gun mods or additions would add half a page, possibly one, two at most.

And would of course appeal to the gun bunnies like me

 

[SableWyvern]

It's not about getting into arguments about calibres more generic groups of weapons. The system is too broad to discuss the .45 vs 9mm; they both weigh about a kilo and are both autopistols, albeit without the automatic fire; where'd that come from?

At first glance, I thought the autopistol represented an SMG. After reading the weapon description, I assumed the auto-fire value represented rapid semi-automatic fire.

Actually reading the automatic fire rules, I no longer have any real idea what the intent is. Certainly, non-burst autofire seems to be better representing rapid semi-automatic shooting than walking automatic fire, except that it comes with a high ammo expenditure.

My preference would be to have something like:

Semi-Automatic: Works much like auto-fire as-written, but only uses ammunition equal to shots rolled. Each extra shot adds +1 to the recoil number. With long-arms, all shots fired on SA must be at the same target. Pistols may use semi-automatic fire against multiple targets, but suffer a -2DM on all shots.

Autofire (walking fire): Works as written, with a -2DM. Adds to recoil as above.

Burst Fire: Works as written, for all weapons with autofire. Adds a flat +1 to recoil.

I'd also like to see suppression fire added.

Suppression Fire: A character engaged in suppression fire chooses a firing lane and expends ammunition equal to 5 times the auto fire or 3 times the semi-automatic rating of the weapon every subsequent Action Phase. A character engaged in suppression fire has an initiative value of 2, but continues to fire in each Action phase. Taking any kind of action (including dodging) ends the suppression fire.

Any target passing through the firing lane suffers a burst-fire attack (if the fire is automatic) or a single-shot attack (if the fire is semi-automatic) with a -2DM. Use of a bipod, tripod, pintle mount or other prepared position removes the -2DM.

 

[Mongoose Gar]

Suppression fire is pretty much built into the rules. Do autofire at a group of targets, and they'll be forced to duck or dodge, thus dropping their initiative dice and not acting as soon as they should.

 

[SableWyvern]

Suppression fire is pretty much built into the rules. Do autofire at a group of targets, and they'll be forced to duck or dodge, thus dropping their initiative dice and not acting as soon as they should.

Suppression probably isn't the right word. I'm talking about fixed fields of fire, and pre-emptively laying down fire to control movement on the battlefield (frex, if you've got enemy advancing on you, and your fire support guy laying down fire across the front of your position, the enemy can either halt their advance, or pass through the fire lane and take the hits).

I'm not going to lobby hard for such a rule, though, it's easy enough for me to implement in my own game whether it's official or not.

 

[SableWyvern]

I thought I'd turn this accidental double-post into something more useful and point out that I am quite impressed with how well the system appears to handle reactive suppression fire.

 

[Exwrestler]

There really should never be a reason (excepting price, availability, tradition and law level of course Smile ) to use an earlier tech weapon.

This just isn't true when the weapons are very close in tech level or when a specific task is required. There are at least three weapons in regular use with the US Military that were designed in the first decades of the 20th century (The Browning M2, Colt 1911, and the M14) and low tech level swords and knives were actually better at what they do than the one we have now (we still can't match the weight of original swords).

Advances in weapon technology aren't always about increasing lethality. Heck almost without exception the current tech level assault rifles are less lethal than their predecessors (Though I'd probably die from either I'd much rather be shot with an L85 than an L1A1 thank you).

4mm Gauss ammo would weigh what, 1/5 of what a comparable conventional round would weigh? Less? (I agree with you they should probably have some AP qualities and the idea that they are silent is silly)

Semi-Automatic: Works much like auto-fire as-written, but only uses ammunition equal to shots rolled. Each extra shot adds +1 to the recoil number. With long-arms, all shots fired on SA must be at the same target. Pistols may use semi-automatic fire against multiple targets, but suffer a -2DM on all shots.

I like this with two exceptions: 1. Nobody can realistically engage multiple targets with one round each. There still needs to be an increase in ammo usage and 2. I'm not sure why it should be impossible to engage multiple targets with a rifle on semi-auto. To my mind this would be easier than accomplishing the same feat with a handgun.

Suppression Fire: A character engaged in suppression fire chooses a firing lane and expends ammunition equal to 5 times the auto fire or 3 times the semi-automatic rating of the weapon every subsequent Action Phase. A character engaged in suppression fire has an initiative value of 2, but continues to fire in each Action phase. Taking any kind of action (including dodging) ends the suppression fire.

Any target passing through the firing lane suffers a burst-fire attack (if the fire is automatic) or a single-shot attack (if the fire is semi-automatic) with a -2DM. Use of a bipod, tripod, pintle mount or other prepared position removes the -2DM.

This is great but I don't think it is realistically possible for one person to do this with a semi automatic weapon. Maybe if they empty the magazine they could do it for one round but normally it takes a squad of riflemen or a machine gun/SAW.


Speaking of Rifles, Pistols and Machine Guns. Why is it that Rifles are given higher recoil ratings than Pistols? This is fairly backward. It isn't that rifle and shotgun rounds don't generate more energy but the weight of the gun and the fact that you have both hands on it mean the recoil affects your aim way less. Irl the sight disruption from the recoil of a M9 9mm pistol is more than that of an M16.

 

[SableWyvern]

This is great but I don't think it is realistically possible for one person to do this with a semi automatic weapon. Maybe if they empty the magazine they could do it for one round but normally it takes a squad of riflemen or a machine gun/SAW.

Yeah, I wouldn't have any issues with removing the option for SA fire in this mode. I think it is possible, but the rule I present is probably a little generous.

I like this with two exceptions: 1. Nobody can realistically engage multiple targets with one round each. There still needs to be an increase in ammo usage and 2. I'm not sure why it should be impossible to engage multiple targets with a rifle on semi-auto. To my mind this would be easier than accomplishing the same feat with a handgun.

My line of reasoning was that engaging multiple targets, under normal circumstances, would be covered by taking multiple shots under the normal rules. Using the SA fire rules as I've presented them means very rapid firing (given that a combat round is about as long as it would typically take just to take a sight picture). As such, I think that a rifle's inertia would limit rapid re-targetting. On the other hand, a long-arm requires less actual movement to re-aim, which is probably why you suggest it would actually be easier with a rifle. I have essentially no experience with pistols, so I certainly won't claim to speak from authority on the comparison.

I have no objections to opening up multiple target engagements to rilfes, and upping the ammo usage for multiple target engagements. Alternately, given that such fire is going to be largely indiscriminant in any case, perhaps multiple target engagements with a single firing action should be limited to fully automatic weapons only. Actually, having reasoned things out, I think that's a better idea.

Speaking of Rifles, Pistols and Machine Guns. Why is it that Rifles are given higher recoil ratings than Pistols? This is fairly backward. It isn't that rifle and shotgun rounds don't generate more energy but the weight of the gun and the fact that you have both hands on it mean the recoil affects your aim way less. Irl the sight disruption from the recoil of a M9 9mm pistol is more than that of an M16.

On a similar note, the rocket launcher shouldn't have any recoil at all, assuming that "recoil" is actually meant to literally represent recoil. OTOH, "recoil" in that instance could instead be representing the fairly impressive concussive effect of firing that sort of weapon (an argument that loses weight when you start to consider the higher tech armour types, hearing protection and the like).

....

Also, a clarification to my suppression fire rule:

Any target in the line of fire when the suppression fire begins would be targeted. After that, any character moving into the zone would be affected, as well as anyone already in the zone who does not immediately move out when they have the opportunity to do so.

Finally, a suggested change to autofire:

The -2DM is replaced with a redesignation of the Optimum range to Personal when using autofire/walking fire.

Edit: Ok, one more thing. I think the Optimum range for pistols should be reduced to Close.

 

[Libris]

There really should never be a reason (excepting price, availability, tradition and law level of course Smile ) to use an earlier tech weapon.

This just isn't true when the weapons are very close in tech level or when a specific task is required. There are at least three weapons in regular use with the US Military that were designed in the first decades of the 20th century (The Browning M2, Colt 1911, and the M14) and low tech level swords and knives were actually better at what they do than the one we have now (we still can't match the weight of original swords).

Advances in weapon technology aren't always about increasing lethality.

Yes they are.
You're just equating terminal muzzle energy with lethality which is fine as far as an individual round is concerned
Battlefield lethality though is about a lot of things. The concept of the assault rifle wasn't that the bullet was more powerful but that you could carry a lot more of them and delivery a heavy volume of fire with a much more controllable weapon. The overall lethality of the M16 weapon system is superior to the M14 for the task that is required of it. If it weren't, the US Army infantry would still be equipped with the M14.

Heck almost without exception the current tech level assault rifles are less lethal than their predecessors (Though I'd probably die from either I'd much rather be shot with an L85 than an L1A1 thank you).

Not the rifle, the round. Individually. And, as you point out the difference from being hit by one would be academic.

 

[Exwrestler]

Yes they are.
You're just equating terminal muzzle energy with lethality which is fine as far as an individual round is concerned
Battlefield lethality though is about a lot of things. The concept of the assault rifle wasn't that the bullet was more powerful but that you could carry a lot more of them and delivery a heavy volume of fire with a much more controllable weapon. The overall lethality of the M16 weapon system is superior to the M14 for the task that is required of it. If it weren't, the US Army infantry would still be equipped with the M14.

In fact (as I mentioned before) many of them still are equipped with it. The M14 is especially popular with Rangers and SOF who need more firepower with fewer guns.

Not the rifle, the round. Individually. And, as you point out the difference from being hit by one would be academic.

Not sure what you mean by "individually" since I'm pretty sure .308s are more deadly than .223s in groups as well.

Anyhow I'm not here to argue about the merits of the M16 vs the M14. My point is that there are many reason that a modern soldier would want to employ a weapon from a prior tech level. Here are a couple more:

Sniper Rifles: Almost all of the Sniper weapons in use today are 19th century technology with a few modern widgets (adjustable/polymer stocks etc.)
Mortars
Grenade Launchers

(drat got a customer...)

 

[Libris]

Forget the M16/M14 thing and think Autorifle vs Assault rifle.

Weapon technology is driven by the needs of the infantry not special forces. There are always cases where older tech will be useful. As far as I am aware there is no current regular US Army or USMC equipped exclusively with Autorifles.

That fact that current weapons utilise previous tech is nothing new. Every piece of technology does from cars to cell phones. It does not make them that TL it makes them the tech of the latest do-dah on or in it; a Brown Bess musket is TL4. Try buying it with an integral holographic sight in a moulded polymer stock and it's TL8.

Incidentally, lethality from a military perspective is measured in percentage chance of an individual hit times the chance of an individual hit incapacitating its target. A section of troops with assault rifles will be able to put down about 2400 rounds each with a slightly higher chance of a hit because of a more controllable weapon. The autorifle guys only have half that. Until recently, the assault rifle won hands down. If I were to have to put one round on a target I'd take an SLR; if I were FIBUA I'd have an assault rifle and my 300 rounds, or a PDW and 450 rounds.

 

[Exwrestler]

There really should never be a reason (excepting price, availability, tradition and law level of course Smile ) to use an earlier tech weapon.

There are always cases where older tech will be useful.

This just officially became silly.

We call them Battle Rifles btw.

 

[Libris]

This just officially became silly.

Not at all. Just pointing out why you might have to utilise older tech rather than want to.

We call them Battle Rifles btw.

Yes we do. Traveller doesn't.

 

[Oaty_bars]

STUFF THAT STILL DEFINITELY NEEDS WORK
Point Buy

Okay just shooting from the hip on this so...

you have 54 points,

to buy a stat from 1-5 cost 1 point each
to buy a stat from 6 - 10 cost 2 points each
to buy a stat from 11 - 15 cost 3 points each

you have enough points to buy stats up to 7 across the board

 

[Libris]

The rules for guns and armour work fine as is. Personally I think they are too seventies for feel and description but YMMV.

However, they have the distinct advantage of being easier to modify than the older editions. If they stay as is I'll certainly be applyng my own house rules from the get go.

Namely,
Pistol rounds double armour.
Armour Piercing level will be used for some high tech weapons.
Haven't figured shotguns yet.
Add more weapons; progressions of what's already there. Heavy Pistol, PDW etc.

 

[SableWyvern]

The rules for guns and armour work fine as is. Personally I think they are too seventies for feel and description but YMMV.

However, they have the distinct advantage of being easier to modify than the older editions. If they stay as is I'll certainly be applyng my own house rules from the get go.

Namely,
Pistol rounds double armour.
Armour Piercing level will be used for some high tech weapons.
Haven't figured shotguns yet.
Add more weapons; progressions of what's already there. Heavy Pistol, PDW etc.

I've reached the concusion that I don't like the armour and damage rules at all; but they do form a workable framework that meets what seems to be a general desire for simplicity.

I've already come up with an alternative system for my own game that uses AKAramis's suggestion of damage multipliers rather than flat damage, combined with armour/penetration adapted from TNE. It's significantly more complex than what exists in the playtest, though, and I wouldn't suggest it as a viable alternative for an official system.

The one real flaw in the current playtest combat sytem, IMO, (which has partially carried over into my own), is that aiming* DMs apply to damage. This creates results where the difficulty of a shot has a very significant effect on the absolute damage, which I find greatly harms the sense of versimilitude. It is a necessary evil, however, in order to avoid the "hard shot = always max damage if you hit", which is even worse. My personal solution has been to split negative DMs between the Timing and Effect die, and to not apply positive DMs to Effect (or Timing) at all. This is an imperfect compromise solution, but, IMO, satisfactorily balances the various considerations. I am not sure that there is any way to make a similar compromise with the official rules, without breaking the whole Timing/Effect die and Initiative system.

*Aiming in the general sense -- anything that helps or hinders your ability to hit.

 

[Libris]

*Aiming in the general sense -- anything that helps or hinders your ability to hit.

Exactly.

It's safer to fight in the dark. Bullets will do less damage since they'll get a lower overall effect.