Merchants weapons

[Vormaerin]

Pirate risks in a region vary. Pirates could be other merchants, pirates could be commerce raiding warships, pirates could be a swarm of low tech small craft. Pirates could be trying to steal your cargo or pirates could be trying to hold your ship for ransom or pirates could be trying to kill you and take your ship.

The type of merchant varies. It could be 200 dtons or it could be 2000 dtons. The merchant in question could be a single free trader or it could be part of a large merchant corporation.

Responses to piracy threats (assuming 'whining to the Navy' is inadequate) could be "not going there" or could be armed traders or could be convoys or could be escort ships or could be q-ship pirate hunters. Depends on the profitability of trading and the resources of the merchant.

What we do know is that it is a "fact" of the setting that civilian craft can have lasers, anti-ship missiles, and sandcasters as weapons. We know from the real world that merchants are extremely unlikely to pay for armaments if they can find a better option.

Personally, I don't put a lot of credence in the "you need a larger power plant for lasers" argument because merchant ships can use essential systems only power setting to reduce primary energy demands to fire the lasers. The current edition Type A is weirdly powered anyway. It needs 60 power to operate full systems and one of either the J-Drive or the M-Drive. But it has 75 power, which is too much for that but not enough to run the M-Drive AND the J-Drive.

Missiles are certainly the most effective if they hit, but the current rules for EW & PD makes that fairly unlikely unless your merchant is dropping a large salvo of missiles. Whether that's affordable depends on the ship's resources. That might bankrupt an indie trader running on the ragged edge or it might just be a lot of paperwork and a review board hearing for a corporate captain.

 

[swordtart]

Can you cite an in-game reference to support this view or is this just YTU?

Traveller Companion simply lists them in the same legality class as pulse lasers (and submachine guns).

I wouldn't put too much stock on the definition of WMD, it varies politically depending on who the "enemy" of the day is.

Your statement doesn’t make sense you don’t believe that weapons that can kill a city in a single strikes are classified as Weapons of Mass Destruction and think every civilian should have a bunch. You also think that the only consideration for the game setting is the rule mechanics not every conversation is about rules some like this one are about the setting and common sense.

None of my statements align with any of your statements.

I did not state whether a weapon that could kill a city in a single strike should or should not be called a WMD. I said the definition of WMD is political rather than objective.
I did not say every citizen should "have a bunch of WMD".
I did not say the only consideration in the game should be the rules.
I asked if this was YTU or whether you were citing canon. If you are not able to cite canon for the TI or some other published setting them you are talking only about YTU and you can do what you like, but you do not get to dictate what I should think.

You supposedly started this tread to discuss the best weapons for a merchant. If you are not prepared to allow other opinions without misrepresenting the arguments set forward then you are not creating an environment for a conversation you are lecturing.

I do not consider a missile launcher to be any more heinous than a pulse laser. The rules agree with me.
I believe that nuclear missiles are a special case. The rules agree with me.
I believe that polities will legislate against the munition rather than the launcher. The rules and real life agree with me.
The acronym WMD does not have any specific meaning in the rules and it has variable meaning in real-life and is irrelevant to the conversation.
I am applying common sense and trying to put forward an evidenced argument. You are dogmatically refusing to acknowledge any opinion that does not match yours.

Just ignore me if you want.

 

[Vormaerin]

In the Nicholas Van Rijn story involving pirates there were state sponsored privateers capturing ships and enslaving crews to the point that they were on the verge of abandoning a valuable trade route. His solution was to form a coalition with his rivals to fund q-ships. This worked because there was someone to negotiate with once the q-ships proved effective.

On the other hand, Free traders in Citizen of the Galaxy face independent pirates armed with crew disabling weapons, so they relied on missiles because the only goal was blowing the pirate to smithereens before it got close enough to disable the crew.

In situations where the crew & ship are going to be ransomed, surrender is probably the preferred policy of corporate ships, if they can maintain profitability (through insurance, most likely) by just paying a certain number of ransoms rather than paying for arms, destroyed ships, and dead crews.

Another possibility might be running 2x J1 ships and being able to micro jump to another approach to the planet or out of the system if you are unlucky enough to be faced with a pirate on a particular run. Costly, but less so than losing the ship.

Though one could argue that piracy is far more likely to happen in the case of interplanetary vessels, belters, and other ships operating in real space far from the main planet rather than pirates trying to nab merchants as they come in or out of the 100D limit. Which changes the scenario again...

 

[tytalan]

But it is not universally accepted is it. There is no international definition. Local laws can be anything you want in your universe.

You would be wrong the UN defines a WMD as “ The United Nations defines Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) as atomic explosive weapons, radioactive material weapons, lethal chemical and biological weapons, and any weapons developed in the future with comparable destructive effects. These weapons are designed to cause significant, large-scale death and destruction to people, infrastructure, and the environment.
Key elements of the UN definition include:
Categories: Nuclear, chemical, biological, and radiological weapons.
Purpose: Destructive devices capable of causing widespread casualties, panic, and environmental devastation.
Context: The definition distinguishes these from conventional weapons under the laws of war, covering their development, production, and use.
Evolution: The definition allows for future technology to be classified as WMD if it matches the catastrophic impact of atomic bombs.

UN Security Council Resolution 1540 (2004) further emphasizes that the proliferation of these weapons and their means of delivery constitutes a threat to international peace and security.”

 

[tytalan]

What is the rate of fire of the field gun? How many rounds until its barrel has to be replaced?

Same as you laser as long as it has ammo.

Given time a single field gun could destroy every building in a city, military's prefer to use more than one gun at a time to get the job done quicker

Just like a laser

 

[tytalan]

do you ever stick to the talking point or do you move the goalposts at every opportunity?

As to your 2 litres of sarin fantasy which reddit user told you that?

The reality is very different, and is a real world occurrence:

Tokyo subway sarin attack - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

it killed 14 and injured a thousand or so.

As for the gas attack if you actually dug into it you would find out that there were many factors that limit the attack chief was the environment.
As for the acid it’s funny how you described the nuke as 10kg but talk about 50g of acid now who’s moving the goalposts.

 

[swordtart]

Missiles are certainly the most effective if they hit, but the current rules for EW & PD makes that fairly unlikely unless your merchant is dropping a large salvo of missiles. Whether that's affordable depends on the ship's resources. That might bankrupt an indie trader running on the ragged edge or it might just be a lot of paperwork and a review board hearing for a corporate captain.

EW can be mitigated by faster missiles. If they hit instantaneously then they arrive before the action round when EW occurs.

PD is certainly a factor. That could be managed in a cheesy way by putting different missiles types in your volley (as each would be treated as a separate salvo CRC p173 and each gunner can target only a single salvo). As you loose a missile per effect it isn't that much harder to kill 3 missiles than the first one, so a couple of extra missiles in a salvo isn't that useful but if you don't have 3 turrets then you cannot kill 3 different salvos.

A less cheesy way would be to launch different range missiles so some arrive later than others. These would definitely be different salvos. If you launched one advanced missile and one multiwarhead missile at the same time at a long range target then one would arrive immediately and the other would not arrive until the next turn. If you launched the same combination again in that turn, the new advanced missile would arrive at the same time as the multi-warhead missile from the previous turn. These would be separate salvos and require two PD actions to defeat.

There are other things like multi warhead and decoy warheads that reduce the effects of PD but not sufficiently (but would meet the variant missile requirement).

I think PD rules need some revision as it is a bit to easy to hit a missile compared to a ship, it is a reaction (so imposes -1 on actions in the next turn?) and can hit multiple targets with the same attack roll. I think I'd just prefer you to be able to strike down a single target like any other attack (unless the PD weapon has the Auto trait). That is another conversation.

 

[Sigtrygg]

You would be wrong the UN defines a WMD as “ The United Nations defines Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) as atomic explosive weapons, radioactive material weapons, lethal chemical and biological weapons, and any weapons developed in the future with comparable destructive effects. These weapons are designed to cause significant, large-scale death and destruction to people, infrastructure, and the environment.

And guess what, the UN definition is not universally recognised and there is no such thing as international law.

Key elements of the UN definition include:
Categories: Nuclear, chemical, biological, and radiological weapons.
Purpose: Destructive devices capable of causing widespread casualties, panic, and environmental devastation.
Context: The definition distinguishes these from conventional weapons under the laws of war, covering their development, production, and use.

It is not universally accepted.

Evolution: The definition allows for future technology to be classified as WMD if it matches the catastrophic impact of atomic bombs.

Such as a starship scale continuous fire laser beaming away for a month...

UN Security Council Resolution 1540 (2004) further emphasizes that the proliferation of these weapons and their means of delivery constitutes a threat to international peace and security.”

It is not universally accepted. There is no internationally recognised definition.

As to the UN, its time has passed.

 

[tytalan]

3r

I believe that polities will legislate against the munition rather than the launcher. The rules and real life agree with me.

What major government allows merchant vessels to carry missiles launchers? Please tell us.

I do not consider a missile launcher to be any more heinous than a pulse laser. The rules agree with me.

The rules are ambiguous and in pirates of Drinax it’s specifically talk about the use of bio weapons in the past. Just because the rules have missile racks doesn’t mean they are allowed near a planet.

I believe that nuclear missiles are a special case. The rules agree with me.

The rules actually don’t make a special case about them the setting does. Again in PoD there’s a whole bit about the imperial response to the players finding nuclear weapons but that’s setting not rules. Thee closest actual rule for nukes is this “ A powerful missile available at lower Tech Levels, using nuclear missiles near an inhabited planet or orbit is forbidden by interstellar law.” The imperium does have laws about nuclear weapons but again that setting.

This thread is about what makes sense in a setting about an ambiguous situation.

Personally in my Traveller universe which is largely driven by common sense unless a merchant has a license (which is generally only available on the fringes of the imperium) they are not allowed into port with a missile rack without being boarded, now how common the boarding depends on the world, but if boarded they are usually charged for the cost of boarding. Now Aslan’s are very different as are varg’r.

As for an accepted international definition of WMD I posted the UNs definition which I believe meets the requirements.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Same as you laser as long as it has ammo.

A laser fires continuously, although for game purposes it is once per combat round. How many rounds to reload and then realign the field gun? Simple question, what is its rate of fire. I can't find it in the game.

Just like a laser

Precisely, a ship with ten triple laser turrets could laser a city to dust in much less time.

 

[Sigtrygg]

As for the gas attack if you actually dug into it you would find out that there were many factors that limit the attack chief was the environment.

Did the almost 2 litres kill everyone on the subway? Did it kill everyone in the city?

No

Your riduculous sarin statement is debunked by the real world.

As for the acid it’s funny how you described the nuke as 10kg but talk about 50g of acid now who’s moving the goalposts.

I didn't describe the nuke as 10kg, I said the missile is 50kg. I plucked the 50g number out of the air, just like every fact you state.

 

[Vormaerin]

EW can be mitigated by faster missiles. If they hit instantaneously then they arrive before the action round when EW occurs.

PD is certainly a factor. That could be managed in a cheesy way by putting different missiles types in your volley (as each would be treated as a separate salvo CRC p173 and each gunner can target only a single salvo). As you loose a missile per effect it isn't that much harder to kill 3 missiles than the first one, so a couple of extra missiles in a salvo isn't that useful but if you don't have 3 turrets then you cannot kill 3 different salvos.

A less cheesy way would be to launch different range missiles so some arrive later than others. These would definitely be different salvos. If you launched one advanced missile and one multiwarhead missile at the same time at a long range target then one would arrive immediately and the other would not arrive until the next turn. If you launched the same combination again in that turn, the new advanced missile would arrive at the same time as the multi-warhead missile from the previous turn. These would be separate salvos and require two PD actions to defeat.

There are other things like multi warhead and decoy warheads that reduce the effects of PD but not sufficiently (but would meet the variant missile requirement).

I think PD rules need some revision as it is a bit to easy to hit a missile compared to a ship, it is a reaction (so imposes -1 on actions in the next turn?) and can hit multiple targets with the same attack roll. I think I'd just prefer you to be able to strike down a single target like any other attack (unless the PD weapon has the Auto trait). That is another conversation.

I was under the impression we were talking about merchant ships, so I don't consider advanced missiles or multi-warhead missiles to be relevant to the conversation. Nor is letting the pirate get into medium or closer range for "immediate" missile hits particularly a good idea. A lot of pirates can wreck your ship from long range, so you have to decide to surrender or not before they get to immediate range.

 

[Endie]

Missiles launched that close do lose the smart trait, of course.

 

[rinku]

There was also:


Now, as a bonus who can say which ship class that is?

Lightning Class?

 

[Sigtrygg]

I didn't think it was a serious question. If you don't know it was the Azhanti High Lightning Class Fleet Intruder Sparkling Distress (FI-6379) constructed at the Clan Severn Yard, laid down 138-997 and completed 121-1000 you likely think Traveller is a Star Wars supplement.

 

[rinku]

From a reality check point of view, if you launch missiles too close, PD has a much easier job of taking them out before they get up to speed, while having them as a much larger target AND effectively no signal delay. As I calculated on another thread, at Short and Close ranges they're only able to get up to bullet speeds, and are travelling quite slowly for quite a while. Going to 6 second turns while engaged at Close range covers that effect very nicely. Which also enables point defense taking out more than one salvo per turn. (To be fair, if using 6 second turns the PD shouldn't be shooting more than one missile per turn either)

Further thought... is there any logical reason missiles couldn't be programmed to hang around the launch ship until a group is gathered, THEN be sent on their merry way so that they arrive all together (whether grouped as one salvo or many)? There may be control limits, although that's probably a function of the ship's electronics. That is, a standard missile launcher on a civilian ship launching stock missiles likely does not allow this tactic, but a ship with military grade electronics probably could. Or you might pay a bit more for a fancy missile with a few tricks up its sleeve. Or the ship's technician might be able to do something about it.

Clearly NOT a good tactic to do too close to something that can shoot at them, but at range (especially Long range) I could see it as being practical.

 

[hopsnbaer]

Further thought... is there any logical reason missiles couldn't be programmed to hang around the launch ship until a group is gathered, THEN be sent on their merry way so that they arrive all together (whether grouped as one salvo or many)? There may be control limits, although that's probably a function of the ship's electronics. That is, a standard missile launcher on a civilian ship launching stock missiles likely does not allow this tactic, but a ship with military grade electronics probably could. Or you might pay a bit more for a fancy missile with a few tricks up its sleeve. Or the ship's technician might be able to do something about it.

Clearly NOT a good tactic to do too close to something that can shoot at them, but at range (especially Long range) I could see it as being practical.

One of my favorite scenes in the Expanse.

 

[Condottiere]

It's not mentioned, but I would have thought that you add the velocity of the launching spacecraft, assuming it's flying towards the target, to said missile.

 

[swordtart]

I was under the impression we were talking about merchant ships, so I don't consider advanced missiles or multi-warhead missiles to be relevant to the conversation. Nor is letting the pirate get into medium or closer range for "immediate" missile hits particularly a good idea. A lot of pirates can wreck your ship from long range, so you have to decide to surrender or not before they get to immediate range.

I wasn't aware that the advanced or long range missiles were military only items, that may be setting specific.

I agree with you about the surrender early or fight to the death. I think the normal missile is enough to keep casual threats at stand off range, but unless you have a decent m-drive then you can't keep them at stand-off permanently, you might just be delaying the inevitable. The aim is not to effectively engage the pirate just to make yourself a less attractive target.

The best weapon for a merchant is the one you sell to upgrade your m-drive and just get out of dodge.

 

[swordtart]

Missiles launched that close do lose the smart trait, of course.

Missiles launched from Adjacent and Close range lose the smart trait. Even standard missiles reach out to Medium range immediately. At Long range that they take 1 space round to get there.