MagRail vs. Gauss

[Allensh]

The various MagRail weapons in Mercenary have come under some...heated...criticism on other boards. In and of themselves, I see nothing wrong with them except that they seem rather redundant given the existence of Gauss weapons which seem to do the same thing but with differently shaped ammo. Admittedly, my knowledge of this sort of thing is weak so...what are the differences?

MagRail weapons all seem to use sharpened metal discs. These are presumably aerodynamic in nature. Some have called them "shuriken guns" but I don't think that's accurate as shurikens would have points and these discs seem to have razor sharp edges.

Traditionally, Gauss weapons fire either metal pellets or needles. So the MagRail seems like essentially the same weapon just with ammo of a different stripe.

Allen

 

[rust]

The systems are somewhat different:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coilgun

In my opinion, the most important difference is that a coilgun (= gauss
weapon) is contactless, while a railgun is not.

 

[Allensh]

Thanks...in game terms they don't seem all that different but I guess that would be true of a lot of the weapons in the game.

Allen

 

[far-trader]

The systems are somewhat different:

...a coilgun (= gauss weapon) is contactless, while a railgun is not.

That's it in a nutshell.

The biggest problem with disc ammo is aerodynamics. No problem in vacuum of course, but any atmosphere is going to make aiming a serious problem, unless you like shooting around corners or bullets that come back if you miss

You have lift, curving depending or barrel tilt, wind effects on the large area of the disc, and so on.

And it just seems silly imo. The only good idea I've seen on the subject was the one about certain cultural reasons for it being.

 

[klingsor]

Sharpened edges to slice open vac suits?
No. Why would conventional projectiles not be perfectly adequate for this and if the suit is armoured better - and indeed better for everything else.
It is a dumb idea born of innocence - a lack of knowledge of how bad an idea it is.

 

[B_Steele]

It is a dumb idea born of innocence - a lack of knowledge of how bad an idea it is.

Actually, when I put the book together I was drawing from several sci-fi sources that span back several years or decades. If this was a Third Imperium book I would have not added them, but Mercenary needed to give other options out there for those who might want to use the Trav rules for other settings (Warhammer 40k, for instance).

Variety in sci-fi is not bad folks, and that was really the only reason I added the MagRails. A little taste of something outside the norm.

-Bry

 

[klingsor]

I suppose so, SF is a very broad church indeed.

 

[Libris]

I think the fundamental issue is that the vast bulk of purchasers of Traveller material are already Travellers and expect anything with the name to follow, or at least not digress from. the OTU. Especially when the product in question follows the "Black Book" format used in "Ye Olde Traveller".

The problem of trying to attract new blood (with for example spinny disc weapons in Mercenary) threatens to alienate a dedicated fan base who will buy anything with Traveller on it - as long as it is Traveller. I for one wasn't aware that non-OTU would be in it since the product's presentation does imply that it is OTU (Black Book format, old title reused). If it had said, "Contains optional non-OTU background material", I may have stayed my mouse click on the "Buy Now".

 

[Twi'lekk_Den-keeper]

okay, what everyone is missing is the fact that a guass rifle, being realistic, CAN NOT COME NEAR to a gunpowder powered gun. Rail guns can, and can surpass them too. So if you want to be "realistic" you've already overlooked a big problem. Personally I think the magrail sounds nasty.

 

[Libris]

okay, what everyone is missing is the fact that a guass rifle, being realistic, CAN NOT COME NEAR to a gunpowder powered gun. Rail guns can, and can surpass them too. So if you want to be "realistic" you've already overlooked a big problem. Personally I think the magrail sounds nasty.

True.

But. If you extrapolate current tech and link it to power generation in Traveller then gauss weapons are nasty - potentially. Using that energy to fling a spinning disc does indeed sound nasty but that same energy would propel a hyper dense dart to significantly superior terminal ballistics.

 

[Shiloh]

One field in which disc-firing guns are superior is firing round corners. Having a machine gun that can drop its rounds vertically into a slit trench by careful handling of the spin-lift/gyroscopic interactions of the round could be terribly handy in some circumstances. With fine control of the launching field by complicated algorithms, those discs could dance some fine jigs.

I still hates them though. Except for mowing down triffids.

 

[EDG]

If they're shooting out of a coilgun at several times the speed of sound, does it even matter what shape the projectiles are? Never mind the aerodynamics, won't the disks just smash through anything with that much raw velocity?

And I guess it's early days for Mongoose, but maybe it'd be advisable to separate out the not OTU weapons (or mark them clearly anyway) so you don't get all the screaming about how "it's not Traveller!" with every book you publish?

 

[zozotroll]

EDG, short answer is no. They wont penetrate much at all.

Longer answer if you are interested is that you are spreading the impact over a much greater area, and wind up bruising the target ratehr than penetrating and killing.

Contrary to hollywood bullets do not knock people down. If they did, they would kill the firer.

If you are interested in a longer answer, just ask, I can write about this stuff for hours.

 

[Twi'lekk_Den-keeper]

Zozotroll- theorectically you are right, and in any other situation I would bow to your superior knowledge- but railguns are somewhat of a unique weapon in this matter. The velocity at which the bullet is fired is directly linked to how much power the railgun is using. That being said, the US navy tested a bow cannon for the new DDG 1000 that was a rail cannon that fired a bullet at seven times the speed of sound. Make that into a handheld rifle using a portable fusion reactor and I bet you could have it fire miniature statues and, at upwards of 5000 mph, it would probably blow apart its target in roughly the same way it would if you fired a bullet. Given my amount of actual experience in such matters- none- you could very easily be right. but my guess is that at such speeds the shape of the projectile fired matters less than it does with conventional weapons.

 

[zozotroll]

The problem is called sectional density. A pencil shape will pemnetrate farther than a dinner plate because there is less resistance to it as it punches through whatever.

The railgun you are talking about will rip through most anything at close range, provided the projectile has enough mass. But, the farther out you get, the less energy is left in the projectile. Something flat has used up all of its energy puching air.

The spining discs may well fly through the air just fine. but they will have to cut through more armor than a needle shap from a gauss weapon.

But so what? They are no more silly than a laser weapon, and it jst would not be a sci-fi game without laser weapons regarless if they make sense or not.

 

[Twi'lekk_Den-keeper]

Interesting. I learned something!
Silly weapons rule sci fi. My kitty cannon took down a 100dton ship yesterday... :twisted:

 

[Allensh]

If they're shooting out of a coilgun at several times the speed of sound, does it even matter what shape the projectiles are? Never mind the aerodynamics, won't the disks just smash through anything with that much raw velocity?

And I guess it's early days for Mongoose, but maybe it'd be advisable to separate out the not OTU weapons (or mark them clearly anyway) so you don't get all the screaming about how "it's not Traveller!" with every book you publish?

Sadly, I have to agree with this. I have NO problem with a wider array of sci-fi weaponry in it that goes outside of the OTU...but apparently a lot of people seem to. If the stuff were clearly labeled as "non-OTU" then at least they could stop complaining as much...or probably not, but its a nice thought.

Allen

 

[Allensh]

It is a dumb idea born of innocence - a lack of knowledge of how bad an idea it is.

Actually, when I put the book together I was drawing from several sci-fi sources that span back several years or decades. If this was a Third Imperium book I would have not added them, but Mercenary needed to give other options out there for those who might want to use the Trav rules for other settings (Warhammer 40k, for instance).

Variety in sci-fi is not bad folks, and that was really the only reason I added the MagRails. A little taste of something outside the norm.

-Bry

Could you cite some of those sci-fi sources? I most certainly believe you, but it would be useful to know what they are when arguing FOR these items on other forums.

Allen

 

[EDG]

Longer answer if you are interested is that you are spreading the impact over a much greater area, and wind up bruising the target ratehr than penetrating and killing.

So you beat the target to death using a hail of hypersonic discs. Same result in the end .

 

[collins355]

It is a dumb idea born of innocence - a lack of knowledge of how bad an idea it is.

Actually, when I put the book together I was drawing from several sci-fi sources that span back several years or decades. If this was a Third Imperium book I would have not added them, but Mercenary needed to give other options out there for those who might want to use the Trav rules for other settings (Warhammer 40k, for instance).

Variety in sci-fi is not bad folks, and that was really the only reason I added the MagRails. A little taste of something outside the norm.

-Bry

Sorry but I don't buy this. It is trying to create a straw-man by mischaracterising the argument. The majority of posters are raising genuine scientific/reasoned objections to a few of the weapons in Mercenary - they are not objecting to variety or new things.

Any long-time Traveller player has been through umpteen new weapons and shifts in artifact usefulness and potentcy. For instance, in the beginning there were no gauss weapons or fusion/plasma weapons or grav belts, then came LBB4. In MegaTraveller there were no tac missiles at all. In TNE as written, fusion weapons were useless and gauss rifles became less effective than ACRs. We are used to change, mate.

It seems that in the particular case of MongTrav Mercenary, some of the weapons were not thought through for very long, and have little military or scientific credibility. That is the point people are hung up about. As I've said before, if there is a design decision to take MongTrav in the direction of science fantasy and away from any attempt at realism then that is something players will have to make up their own minds about. Some will love it. Some won't, and as that design decision will represent a marked shift from all that the Traveller brand has stood for until now, I think you can expect a bit of complaining.

But from what I've seen, the issue is definitely not variety or change, rather it is about credibility. Given the brief and introductory nature of the weapons section in the core rules (perfectly understandable design decision, I would add), I would have thought there was plenty of room for the Ironmongery section of Mercenary to flesh out the exisiting weapons (ammo weights for instance) and combat rules, and add a few carefully thought through new weapons and pieces of military equipment that would appeal to military-oriented gamers. Some people consider that opportunity to have been, at least partially, squandered.