Mercenary Field Catalogue - Weapon Making Spreadsheet

Heartwarder

Mongoose
Kranth-Technoshaman said:
Bear in mind that I see no reason you couldn't use small high power Grav Plates to fire conventional projectiles, so you then have the option of Gravitic Accelerator Heavy Rocket Rifle for example. Maybe at higher TL though!

We have grav weapons in one of JTASes, JTAS 4 if I am not mistaken, although I dont like the writeup very much as author seems to confuse mass and weight at times. It is listed as TL 13-14.
Anyway, the core of my issue is that as written, weapon design rules should allow applying "Rocket" modifier to "Gauss" rounds. An idea was flung above by you, Kranth-Technoshaman, that gauss gives the initial boost of speed, but that would negate "Zero-G", so I was trying to come up with fluff to support this mechanical construct - a gauss, but rocket - that would not be self contradictory - hence the assumption that the rocket uses gauss-like thingie for propulsion - i.e. less fuel, so rounds are smaller, so you have more of them in the mag. The receiver is larger, because it needs to keep the rounds charged at all times. So this kind of fluff explains all the mechanical effects we get for applying Rocket to Gauss as base. Just needs a good name.

To all other responders - see above - the discussion is about explaining a mechanical thing in the rules offered, that is probably unintended, namely applying "Rocket" modifier to "Gauss" weapon base, as if it was a conventional round - i.e. double the price per round, reduce ammo to 60%, halve the base receiver mass, set range to 250 m, add Inaccurate (-1) and Zero-G. Pages 38-40 of Field Cat. In a way it produces a higher TL recoiless weapon. Just needs a good fluff and a name, if we are to use it.
 
Heartwarder said:
Kranth-Technoshaman said:
Bear in mind that I see no reason you couldn't use small high power Grav Plates to fire conventional projectiles, so you then have the option of Gravitic Accelerator Heavy Rocket Rifle for example. Maybe at higher TL though!

We have grav weapons in one of JTASes, JTAS 4 if I am not mistaken, although I dont like the writeup very much as author seems to confuse mass and weight at times. It is listed as TL 13-14.
Anyway, the core of my issue is that as written, weapon design rules should allow applying "Rocket" modifier to "Gauss" rounds. An idea was flung above by you, Kranth-Technoshaman, that gauss gives the initial boost of speed, but that would negate "Zero-G", so I was trying to come up with fluff to support this mechanical construct - a gauss, but rocket - that would not be self contradictory - hence the assumption that the rocket uses gauss-like thingie for propulsion - i.e. less fuel, so rounds are smaller, so you have more of them in the mag. The receiver is larger, because it needs to keep the rounds charged at all times. So this kind of fluff explains all the mechanical effects we get for applying Rocket to Gauss as base. Just needs a good name.

To all other responders - see above - the discussion is about explaining a mechanical thing in the rules offered, that is probably unintended, namely applying "Rocket" modifier to "Gauss" weapon base, as if it was a conventional round - i.e. double the price per round, reduce ammo to 60%, halve the base receiver mass, set range to 250 m, add Inaccurate (-1) and Zero-G. Pages 38-40 of Field Cat. In a way it produces a higher TL recoiless weapon. Just needs a good fluff and a name, if we are to use it.

Have not read the JTAS articles to be honest.
How about "Gauss Accelerator [Weapon]"? if you want to keep it simpler?

I must admit that I do love the concept of the old Gyrojet pistols, as any Buck Rogers or Dan Dare fan would! Who doesn't want a rocket pistol?

Fluff-wise :
Noting that accelerator rounds have an inherent drawback in the first few meters of acceleration, where they simply do not have enough kinetic energy to actually defeat any kind of light body armour, the 3I started a weapons trial for Low and Zero-G kinetic weapons capable of firing with minimal recoil, but still able to pack a punch at close range. Several options were trialled, including slow moving but high explosive rounds, gauss weapons with recoil compensation, and this.
This is a Gauss enhanced Accelerator weapon, a gauss weapon with a variable kick, firing accelerator rounds that accelerate after launch. recoil is there, but minimal at maximum Gauss level, and the accelerator round has enough kinetic energy to do actual damage within the first few meters, then accelerates to an even higher velocity giving it a solid range.
Available in all standard Accelerator round types and calibers.
 
Weapon Min TL Range Damage Kg Cost Magazine Magazine Cost Quickdraw Traits
BIFII - Gauss Accelerator PDW 13 50m 3D 1.64Kg Cr4,027.31 24 Cr110.56 7 AP 3, Auto 3, Emission Signature Low, Physical Signature Normal, Scope, Inaccurate (-1), Zero-G

Fully Automatic Assault Weapon with a folding stock.

Ammo Type Damage Range Cost/100 Traits TL
Small Gauss Accelerator 3D 50 461 AP3
AP variant 3D 50 *4 AP+3 4
Guided variant 3D 50 *6 +Smart 7
Incendiary Variant 3D 50 *3 Blast 3, Fire 8

Guided AP Incendiary ammo = 3D, 50m, 6000/100, Smart, AP6, Blast 3, Fire

NB : Range for Gauss is 100*0.2, Range for Accelerator is 250*0.2. IMO it should run from Accelerator, otherwise it's range (should technically be) 70m (20+50).
 

Heartwarder

Mongoose
Me like - "Gauss Accelerator" has a ring to it :)

About the range, I feel like 250 m override for all "Rocket" rounds is an oversimplification? underthought? by the author of the system in the first place. It is natural to assume larger rocket to offer better range, yes? That is what we see in real world. Sure, Range stat of ground scale weaponry in MgT2 is a combination of effective range and accuracy, not pure range, but anyway, why it was not made a percentage modifier instead of hard override?!
 

phavoc

Cosmic Mongoose
Heartwarder said:
Me like - "Gauss Accelerator" has a ring to it :)

About the range, I feel like 250 m override for all "Rocket" rounds is an oversimplification? underthought? by the author of the system in the first place. It is natural to assume larger rocket to offer better range, yes? That is what we see in real world. Sure, Range stat of ground scale weaponry in MgT2 is a combination of effective range and accuracy, not pure range, but anyway, why it was not made a percentage modifier instead of hard override?!

Are we talking about effective range, or actual range? US soldiers routinely have to qualify at 300 yds using M-16's (we didn't have fancy sights in my days, just iron sights and Mk1 Eyeball). Effective range for average assault rifle is going to be about 300m - and that's having a good solid base and aiming. Firing on the run or any kind of movement is more like 100m or so.

Whenever you have time to aim, aren't under fire and have bracing/tripod, you can get the effective range closer to maximum range. There's some company in TX that's created a sniper scope that makes just about anyone into a sniper at the maximum effective range of your weapon. It's insane what you can do with electronics and optics (and some $$$)
 

Condottiere

Emperor Mongoose
Engagement distance, accuracy and lethality.

If we can snipe each other at a distance, and going by what happened recently in Armenia that's now being done by kamikaze drones, I rather doubt lower teched forces have much of a chance against competent higher teched ones.

I think that each squad would now have a marksman with a rifle that can take out drones, a grenadier, and light machinegunner for suppressive fire.

Platoons would have a manportable anti aircraft system for the bigger drones and helicopters.

And since it's now possible to hunt remotely, and electronic scopes can be integrated into a rifle that won't fire until the barrel actually aligns with the designated target, I suspect that there is now no middle ground, but hit at a distance or get close enough to make those systems irrelevant.
 

Heartwarder

Mongoose
phavoc said:
Are we talking about effective range, or actual range? US soldiers routinely have to qualify at 300 yds using M-16's (we didn't have fancy sights in my days, just iron sights and Mk1 Eyeball). Effective range for average assault rifle is going to be about 300m - and that's having a good solid base and aiming. Firing on the run or any kind of movement is more like 100m or so.

Well not exactly. We are talking about mechanical Range statistic used in second edition of traveller weapon representation. It is a bit convoluted - its neither maximal, nor effective range. Let's call it "nominal" range for the lack of official designation.
Rules as written, maximum attack range is 4x Nominal range with the following modifiers to-hit rolls:
  • 0.25x Nominal or less - Short range - DM+1 to-hit;
    1.00x Nominal or less - Normal range - no change;
    2.00x Nominal or less - Long range - DM-2 to-hit;
    4.00x Nominal or less - Extreme range - DM-4 to-hit.
*as given on page 73 of the core book

I personally homebrewed those modifiers to the following:
  • 0.25x Nominal or less - Short range - no bonus;
    1.00x Nominal or less - Normal range - DM-2 to-hit;
    2.00x Nominal or less - Long range - DM-4 to-hit;
    4.00x Nominal or less - Extreme range - DM-8 to-hit.
to get a more realistic probability curve and encourage aiming.

But this is a tangent to the topic - the discussion is on "Personal Weapon Design" system and its peculiarities. Making all gyrojets regardless of caliber 250 m nominal range is not a perfect solution imo.
 
OK, can someone check my maths?

I challenged mysef to make a burst fire laser handgun that you can get in character creation, so TL12, 1KCr max.

Receiver : Minimal - 400Cr, 0.5Kg, Quickdraw 4, 2D, 50m base, Power per shot = 1/D = 2 (Lasers have Penetration-1)
BF capable : 10% cost, 0% mass
Intensified Pulse : +25% Cost, +10% Mass - Penetration+1

Receiver Totals : 550Cr, 0.55Kg

Assault Barrel : 110Cr, 0.17Kg : -50% Range, Quickdraw+2

Totals : 660Cr, 0.72Kg
Internal Power Pack : 300Cr, 0.3Kg

Final Result :
BIFII - Laser BF Handgun, TL12, Range 25m, 2D, 1.02Kg, 1000Cr, ammo 30, Quickdraw 8 :: Auto-2, Zero-G
 

Heartwarder

Mongoose
Looks correct. Gotta make it Fully-Auto though. BF makes zero sense mechanically as written. Can save money with Low Quality perhaps?
 
I've always thought that when Traveller tried to abstract weapon penetration (ala Classic Trav, Mongoose Trav) that the combat system and weapon designs never quite made sense... not nearly enough differentiation of weapons.

When penetration was explicitly part of the combat system (ala Striker, MegaTrav) then suddenly everything falls into place much better. Once you do that, then weapon-type differences matter... a lot. It's clear that Mongoose understands this to some extent... as that's why they have the AP trait. But really, the best way to handle this is to just have a separate penetration roll to start with. Roll to hit, roll to penetrate, roll damage. Clean, and in practice actually more simple, as you then don't need a bunch of add on traits for weapons to make sense.

Also, you then get a much better sense of the difference between a small handgun (low dmg, low pen) vs .shotgun (high dmg, low pen) vs. a battle rifle (moderate dmg, moderate pen).

We used to play with a hybrid of Striker and MegaTrav rules. It made Trav. combat sizzle. Worked really well.
 

Heartwarder

Mongoose
Repairman_Jack said:
When penetration was explicitly part of the combat system (ala Striker, MegaTrav) then suddenly everything falls into place much better. Once you do that, then weapon-type differences matter... a lot...
...We used to play with a hybrid of Striker and MegaTrav rules. It made Trav. combat sizzle. Worked really well.

Noted. If I ever get to design my system (or make a plug-in for MgT2/2300AD), I will handle it this way. Players almost never mind dropping an extra dice or two. After dropping handful at once in dnd, whats an extra 2D or whatnot for Pen.

Overall, I wish games used real world "Protection Onion" concept more actively. No need to invent the wheel:
  • Avoid Encounter - layer at which all those comms, tactics, luck and having allies comes to play
  • Avoid Detection - a score increased by camouflage, stealth and cloaking gizmos against enemy score from sensors and the like
  • Avoid Acquisition - score granted by ECM gear vs. enemy targeting devices (this one is rarely mentioned for personal combat, with aiming being done by Eyeball Mk1, but for future setting it deserves to be covered for infantry as well as vehicles, imo, Visilight Camo does affect Eyeballs, just saying)
  • Avoid Hit - score from dodges and any gear like decoy launchers, holographic projectors and personal advanced laser ams we can mount to mechanized suits
  • Avoid Penetration - score from plain old slabs of crystaliron, superdense or whatnot attached to the meatbag - the more slabs, the better score compared with enemies ability to penetrate armor
  • Avoid Kill - no, not hit points, its things like redundant organs, emergency cryopods or some stasis devices
Its simple and elegant abstraction, instead of going for "if X, then Y" convoluted features of individual gear items.
 
Top