Mercenary, Heavy Weapons.

[RandyT0001]

What we need is for somebody to go through the weapons in Mercenary and then post a thread of the weapons therein that are historically OTU and those that are not.

Do you really think that the weapons described in the OTU so far are the only ones that exist? That in 10,000 worlds (plus loads more outside the Imperium) nobody has ever come up with anything different (i.e. the additional weapons from Mercenary)?

Based upon Rust's previous post:

That the people who will play Traveller in other settings than the OTU
might want some non-OTU weapons, too ?

others consider some of the weapons in Mercenary non-OTU also. I merely suggested that a list be compiled and that Mongoose enlist the services of a line editor to work at preventing future contradictions (like the ones from before that have exploded into flame wars, ie jump torpedoes, the extent of piracy in the OTU, etc.). Considering the rules rather broad and impercise combat resolution pretty much an Aslan rifle, a Solomani rifle, an Imperial rifle, a Darrian rifle, a Sword Worlds rifle, will do about the same amount of damage within the system, basically all 10,000 worlds rifles will do about the same amount of damage regardless of origin. I don't want to see some of the fundementals of the OTU be corrupted by the lastest pop media scifi fads. There are certain characteristics of the OTU that have to be maintained otherwise it can't be advertised as the OTU anymore. A prime example is jump travel entails (about) a week's time in jump space, there is no FTL communication beyond FTL travel.

 

[zozotroll]

Generaly, I like Bryans work a lot. In Mercenary, he did well on the things I cant do for my self, and the only errors are in an area I can easily fix myself.

Arittery is a complex subject not well understood even by many that use it as a regular job. I have yet to find a skirmish game that came even close to reality. None. I wrote one myself for a historical game called battleground WWII a few years ago at the request of one of the guys in the company. It was realistic, and totaly unusable in a game. real artillery is simply to powerful to do anything but clear the board on all but a full basement sized table.

What most game designers go for is a feel of artillery, rather than the actual thing. It makes most people happy, the the specialists are so few and far between that we dont need to be considered.

BR, if you have access to a TFT, I can show you how to prove to yourself that projos do not reach terminal velocity on any but the highest charges.

Bryan, if you read this, and ever have a question about how guns really work, PM me. I have 21 years experience in the US Army Field Arillery. I have worked on the guns, in operations, many years in fire control, and even got to be an observer a few times. There are things I dont know, but not ones likely to come up that often.

 

[EDG]

I don't want to see some of the fundementals of the OTU be corrupted by the lastest pop media scifi fads. There are certain characteristics of the OTU that have to be maintained otherwise it can't be advertised as the OTU anymore. A prime example is jump travel entails (about) a week's time in jump space, there is no FTL communication beyond FTL travel.

Like Klaus, I don't want the OTU to be fossilised as it was described in 1979 or 1983... I'm all up for a few new additions.

Yes, there should be things that specifically have to stay the same (like jump being the only FTL method and taking a week etc), but I don't think the list has to be so restrictive as to say "only these weapons are ever allowed to be in the OTU". It's OK to say that for example the most commonly seen weapons are X, Y and Z, but I don't think it's excessive to say that no other weapons exist other than what has already been described.

 

[Klaus Kipling]

There are actually a few patents out there for spinning disc projectiles.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6024078.html

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6024078/description.html

Of course just because there is a patent doesn't mean it's a viable concept, but it does show it's not just game designers thinking "that's kewl".

I'm going to assume MagRails are simply heavy calibre gauss weapons (or more correctly, rail guns) in my games. Any perceived issue evaporates then.

 

[Infojunky]

My problem with the weapons in Mercenary is in nomenclature

Certainly nomenclature in 1105 in a culture of mixed people that originally developed separately for thousands of years will have some differences from the nomenclature used many years previously on Terra... Even on Terra of old, the different cultures, and even people of the same culture give different meanings to the same word.

This isn't a good argument supporting your point, please reconsider it.
You are defending apples and oranges. The thing is the thing, if you change the name of the thing with no ground work all you are producing is gibberish.

GUN and Howitzer in ordinance terms are two different things. If you are going to re write that let us know before you do, Not in the middle of a sentence.

 

[Infojunky]

While the wording in the AT-gun chapter is a bit unclear re-reading it an looking at the tech table makes it (at least to me) quite clear that they mean the right thing. AT-gunnery DID start with non-specialised weaposn and developed all the way to the Rapira-3 AT-GUN (and in Traveller a direct-fire plasma gun). And APHE /SAPHE was one of the early projectiles in tank warfare.

Yes, but that still doesn't change a howitzer into a Gun....

In general a howitzer is a high angle weapon, sitting between mortars and guns. While some howitzers are capable of direct fire, they are generally used in that role only in dire circumstances. As to the evolution of the AT-guns they descend from field guns that general fired along flat trajectories.

 

[CosmicGamer]

..

 

[rust]

- a short canon firing shells in a high trajectory

When canon starts to fire shells, no matter in what kind of trajectory,
these canon wars are definitely going too far... :shock:

[I beg your pardon, I was unable to resist ... ]

 

[Infojunky]

Certainly nomenclature in 1105 in a culture of mixed people that originally developed separately for thousands of years will have some differences from the nomenclature used many years previously on Terra... Even on Terra of old, the different cultures, and even people of the same culture give different meanings to the same word.

This isn't a good argument supporting your point, please reconsider it.
You are defending apples and oranges. The thing is the thing, if you change the name of the thing with no ground work all you are producing is gibberish.

Apples and oranges? Did you quote my post by mistake? I never mentioned fruit.

Lets, see it was the whole assumption the text can't be wrong because the meanings of the words had drifted in the fictional universe. I will give you that terms can and will drift through time. But, the book and it's readers are existing in the same time-frame, and as such to change the common usage of well known words is alright with some sort of prior signal that this has happened. without this we get your defense of the paragraph in question where you defend it, i.e. you assert apples=oranges because of the difference in time-frame. While there is a implied shift, there is no place in the text where they redefine what the specific terms mean. Leading to confusion, thus defending it as time-shifted meaning drift without documentation is not a reasonable defense.

GUN and Howitzer in ordinance terms are two different things.

I don't have a clue what "ordinance terms" is supposed to mean. Perhaps you could elaborate.

It is due to your defense of the text as written. And my pointing out the offending section.

Like I said before, I don't know enough about heavy weapons, ordinance, artillery, or whatever it is that you call a Howitzer. Let me go check it out. Be right back... Ok, I'm back. The dictionary has this definition of Howitzer:

- a short canon firing shells in a high trajectory

=> copied from Wikipedia....
Naval guns or infantry support guns are typically longer-barreled, low-trajectory, high-velocity weapons designed primarily for a direct-fire role. Typically the length of a cannon barrel is greater than 25 times its caliber (inner diameter)

Howitzers are relatively shorter. Capable of both high- and low-angle fire, they are most often employed in an indirect-fire role, capable of operating in defilade. Typically, the length of a howitzer barrel is between 15 and 25 times its caliber.

Mortars are smaller, low-velocity, high-angle weapons capable of only high-trajectory fire at a relatively short range. Typically the length of a mortar barrel is less than 15 times its caliber.

With that the first half of the AT-Gun description in more fitting for the Frag-cannon. As the direct genesis of AT-guns was from Guns, not howitzers.

 

[Infojunky]

- a short canon firing shells in a high trajectory

When canon starts to fire shells, no matter in what kind of trajectory,
these canon wars are definitely going too far... :shock:

[I beg your pardon, I was unable to resist ... ]

It's alright..... I was wondering why I was arguing about 3 paragraphs of an otherwise fine product.

 

[zozotroll]

IJ, how are you with "Rifled" lasers or plasma emmiters? I quietly shudder from time to time, but dont normaly mention it.

The US 155mm weapons are about an L/40 weapon, depending on whose system you use to measure it. They call it a Gun/Howitzer as it is lo9ng enough to be used as a gun, but spends most of its time working in indirect fire.

 

[Infojunky]

IJ, how are you with "Rifled" lasers

Wrong, but I once had a player with a bolt action Laser, which BTW one could do with FF&S.

plasma emmiters?

I quietly shudder from time to time, but dont normaly mention it.

Me too... But some things that are just plan wrong... Well.

The US 155mm weapons are about an L/40 weapon, depending on whose system you use to measure it. They call it a Gun/Howitzer as it is lo9ng enough to be used as a gun, but spends most of its time working in indirect fire.

Yah. I know, it was more a case of advertising how much they didn't know that got me.

 

[Klaus Kipling]

I think for general game purposes, and mechanically, AT guns and howitzers could be regarded as virtually identical. It's more how they're used than the general concept (big tube goes bang fires big shell).

Yes, the Frag Cannon is more like a howitzer, or a mortar. It's a layman's error (I am a layman too, btw) but perfectly forgivable. Terms for weaponry can be somewhat intricate and arcane. Remember, many of the original designers had served in the military. Should we consider that to be a prerequisite to be a game designer today?

An example: the Tank Destroyer. It's not an MBT, but most folk would say "that's a tank". It's not even a universally used term anymore, as a guy with a missile can do the same thing. Essentially, it's a tank with an MBT style gun so it can knock 'em out, but it hasn't the same armour, so is not so invulnerable to small arms. Many have wheels instead of tracks, so not as all-terrain, either. Still a kind of tank, though a purist might snort at that definition.

I would have like to have seen some disposable MetalStorm-style artillery. A cheap box of tubes you can drop from an air/raft in a pattern that can fire multiple shots remotely (so that rader-guided return fire doesn't blow up your useful kit and men). (I do not see the point of Metalstorm infantry weapons, btw - what commander is going to think it's a good idea that his mean can empty their weapons in a split second?).

 

[EDG]

I guess I shouldn't be too surprised that people are actually arguing about the name of a projectile weapon here, should I...

 

[far-trader]

I guess I shouldn't be too surprised that people are actually arguing about the name of a projectile weapon here, should I...

About the same as some arguing the finer points of astrophysics...

 

[Infojunky]

I guess I shouldn't be too surprised that people are actually arguing about the name of a projectile weapon here, should I...

Got cuaght at a weak moment.

 

[EDG]

About the same as some arguing the finer points of astrophysics...

Not even remotely. At least that's arguing about whether something is realistic or not - this is just arguing over what something's called. If the label in the book is wrong then just change it and be done with it already, it's not going to change the way the rules work or anything.

 

[far-trader]

About the same as some arguing the finer points of astrophysics...

Not even remotely...

Missed by a parsec eh? :roll:

What I'm saying is you with your bonafides know when something is wrong for a star (like it being too young, too hot, whatever to have planets) or planet (like being too small or whatever to have atmo, water, or whatever). So it grates on your very soul and you speak up about it.

Same thing for those with knowledge of artillery and other weapons. That "only a name" grates on them the same way.

I for one am glad to have expert veracity in our game across all it's facets. I don't think accurate weaponry descriptions are any less important than accurate astrophysics, or any of the other myriad disciplines involved.

 

[Klaus Kipling]

Well EDG and others (including myself) have been taken to task quite firmly at times over wanting realistic/none-unrealistic worldgen. It is something that gets slapped down in places and at times (thinking here of MJD's 'problems' with fixing some of the SM UWPs). It's not even if the request is for totally realistic worldgen, just one that in some way actually reflects what really happens, and most of the time the folk who want it are quite happy to compromise.

Which is why it seems quite odd to see so many blown gaskets over what is, at most, a small handful of mis-termed items. 3 or 4 entries in the equipment section are getting all the attention, while the other 99% of the book is being ignored.

I do understand why military gearheads are nonplussed by those errant entries, but to get more upset than a mild irritation is surely nit-picking?

It's not like 20+% of the entries are frelled to nonsense, as is the case with UWPs.

Do a few misplaced words really make something Not-Traveller?

 

[EDG]

I do understand why military gearheads are nonplussed by those errant entries, but to get more upset than a mild irritation is surely nit-picking?

This is it exactly. The way some people are going on about it they sound like they're refusing to buy the book because it's got some mis-termed items in it, which is just plain silly.