Merchants weapons

[swordtart]

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.

No logical reason, the implication is they use m-drives not reaction drives so it would be entirely possible for them to vary their thrust. The issue will be the very "simple" brain that is implied. With a robot missile chassis you could fit a more intelligent brain and give it an auto-pilot. Then you could give it verbal orders and it could work it out itself. Probably too expensive and a bit involved for a merchant though.

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.

If you want a lot of missiles in the air the Container Missile option in Companion gives a surge capability, but not significantly more than a triple launcher and no reload capability either. It makes more sense for boats.

It starts to get expensive as well.

 

[swordtart]

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.

Possibly if you were using vector movement from Companion.

 

[rinku]

Possibly if you were using vector movement from Companion.

Yes, but a lot of the time your launching ship is decelerating. It may not be going as fast as you think when it gets into combat.

As well, two ships that have closed to fighting range pretty much have to have matched vectors, so from the point of view of a missile each ship is more or less a fixed point anyway, even if the whole group is barrelling along at thousands of kph relative to the local star.

Or, putting it simply, yes, by all means add the velocity of the launch ship to the missile, but don't forget to subtract the velocity of the target.

As Swordtart mentioned, you can work this stuff out with vectors if you care to. In 46 years of Travelling I have yet to come across a case where that has REALLY been worth figuring out.

 

[tytalan]

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.

Underground with a vacuum pulling away the gas. The official report actually said that if it had been released in the air above the city the loss of life would have been catastrophic. You’re the one being ridiculous cherry-picking a situation that was literally the worst way to use the weapon. Are you being facetious on purpose!

 

[Vormaerin]

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.

Advanced missiles are TL14, which is atypically high for merchants in Imperial space, if nothing else. Multiwarhead missiles are three times as expensive and missiles are already expensive enough to challenge most small merchant ships' finances.

As for whether they are explicitly "military", I don't think Mongoose has ever said that in the current edition. It suggests that barbettes, bays, and spinals are normally only military. So I suppose we have to consider particle accelerators and fusion guns as normal civilian weapons, since they go on turrets and it doesn't say "military only". Nor do nuclear or ortillery missiles, for that matter.

But if we are just going to asssume that if its in high guard and doesn't explicitly get ruled out then it is fair game, merchants should probably have Ion missiles or particle beam turrets.

 

[tytalan]

Lasers and sandcasters are both defenses vs missiles. As people have stated if a pirate show up the merchant has only a few choices
1). Try giving up cargo to escape but this leads to a constant drain on resources
2). Fight though even if you allow missiles on your merchants the pirate ship is probably going to be able to ignore them (a pirate is better equipped generally to defend vs the small salvo that free/fartrader can produce
3). Run this probably make the most sense as long as the ship is reasonably close to the main world or a patrol or close to being ready to jump this is where lasers and sandcasters come into their own primary to defend the merchant until escape.

In case 1). Missiles don’t make sense because you not trying to attack your trying to appease so only defensive weapons like lasers and sandcasters make sense
In case 2). Unless you replace both turrets with barbettes you just can’t get a missile salvo heavy enough to discourage or beat the pirates you be better off upgrading you power plant and carrying particle beam turrets or fusion with long range modifier if we are deciding that government don’t care about civilians having military grade weapons.

 

[tytalan]

Advanced missiles are TL14, which is atypically high for merchants in Imperial space, if nothing else. Multiwarhead missiles are three times as expensive and missiles are already expensive enough to challenge most small merchant ships' finances.

As for whether they are explicitly "military", I don't think Mongoose has ever said that in the current edition. It suggests that barbettes, bays, and spinals are normally only military. So I suppose we have to consider particle accelerators and fusion guns as normal civilian weapons, since they go on turrets and it doesn't say "military only". Nor do nuclear or ortillery missiles, for that matter.

But if we are just going to asssume that if its in high guard and doesn't explicitly get ruled out then it is fair game, merchants should probably have Ion missiles or particle beam turrets.

Or fusion guns with long range modifier. Personally I don’t see turret based missile as being practical in any case since a triple beam turrets is likely to kill the salvo. I would never suggest missiles in anything smaller than a barbette which is another point against merchant using missiles they can get the salvo’s density to actually do damage.

A warship with large numbers of triple missile turrets can be effective but not the small numbers that a merchant carries.

 

[rinku]

As a small aside, I doubt reduced warhead, longer endurance, or reduced thrust, longer endurance missiles would be considered a problem on the civilian market, or require any different TL. That's all a long range missile built on a standard frame would be.

Same parameters with bigger thrust or warhead may be a higher TL job though. Even then, most likely they're just expensive, not a legal issue.

Just pop in Uncle Al's Space Stop and Gunnery Shop and dial up a few!

 

[rinku]

I'm good with anything that can be mounted in a turret being available for purchase. Most civilian ships lack the spare power to consider the likes of multiple mount fusion guns and particle beam turrets. So if you're considering those types of upgrade, you'll need to upgrade the power plant first.

It's not cheap.

But as High Guard states, barbettes are a different matter and not usually available on the civilian market. Which means that any ship that shows up equipped with them is going to be treated like any other visiting warship. The Navy would definitely be interested in where those barbettes came from and what your intentions are in their patrol area...

 

[Vormaerin]

A particle accelerator turret is the same energy cost as a double laser turret. A pair of them on a free trader takes up 16 energy, of which it has 15 to spare already in the high guard version. It's obviously MCr6 more than the double lasers, but it is vastly more effective given that it does 3D dmg at VL range vs 1d+1 at Medium range.

That is deterrence against most pirates.

Fusion guns are just terrible for civilians, for sure. Ginormous power demands for only medium range and only slightly more damage than a particle accelerator.

 

[Condottiere]

Accidental discharge by weapon systems of commercial shipping, or private, would be covered by an insurance policy.

So, without insurance, you can't dock at an Imperium starport.

 

[swordtart]

I'm good with anything that can be mounted in a turret being available for purchase. Most civilian ships lack the spare power to consider the likes of multiple mount fusion guns and particle beam turrets. So if you're considering those types of upgrade, you'll need to upgrade the power plant first.

I agree. It is not a regulatory issue but a cost/benefit issue. For a genuine commercial vessel every ongoing expense has to pay its way.

If players want a "trader" that is armoured and gunned up they ying-yang that is their affair. Once you are prepared for a fight, you might be tempted to go looking for a fight. An unused particle beam turret is a wasted particle beam turret

Many ships have "spare" power as you can always run at minimum base power if a fight starts. If you are fighting then you aren't jumping and many ships have integer power plant tonnage that doesn't always align directly with the actual power requirements anyway.

 

[Fluffy Bunny Feet]

You misunderstand me. Your ship is only PRETENDING to have "merchant" as its main line of business.

Issue 1/ While under construction the word about this business Q ship gets out and pirates put it on the "do not approach" list. You can avoid this by making the ship far away then it has a long trip with no income. Better have deep pockets

Issue 2/ The most effective pirates would have insiders telling what ships to attack, yours has suspiciously little (or none) cargo let alone cargo of value. The customs people on the take as their informants will know what your ship is. Won't be approached. No income.

Issue 3/ Unless pirates are a severe danger in the area you could go months or years with no income as you don't get attacked and if they ARE a severe issue the navy will show up in the major systems and minor systems don't have enough business of value to support the pirates. Your ship will look like a pirate to the navy with their REAL warships who just want you dead not to steal your cargo.

Issue 4/ Your ship may be a match for the pirate but that just means you both get wrecked unless your ship is substantially bigger. Which means much more expensive to buy and operate.

Issue 5/ Who is going to give you a mortgage on a ship that is actively seeking combat? Too great a chance of losing the money loaned possibly on its first battle.

Issue 6/ Unless you have letters of marque the fact that you are hunting other ships makes YOU a pirate too.

 

[mavikfelna]

A particle accelerator turret is the same energy cost as a double laser turret. A pair of them on a free trader takes up 16 energy, of which it has 15 to spare already in the high guard version. It's obviously MCr6 more than the double lasers, but it is vastly more effective given that it does 3D dmg at VL range vs 1d+1 at Medium range.

That is deterrence against most pirates.

Fusion guns are just terrible for civilians, for sure. Ginormous power demands for only medium range and only slightly more damage than a particle accelerator.

I believe Particle guns of any type, turret/barbette/bay or spinal, are the best weapons available outside of certain situations. Mesons make better ortillery and meson bays can be incredibly effective if you control the range. Lasers are dual purpose, anti-missile and offensive and pulse lasers are nearly as good as particles accelerators, only losing out with slightly lower damage but better crit potential.

 

[Vormaerin]

Once again, we are in the territory of 'what situation are we talking about?'. Governments with an actual space navy and reasonable ability to enforce regulations are probably going to restrict civilian weaponry more than just "whatever you can stuff in a turret, but no larger!". Regions of space without such governments are, of course, not going to have meaningful restrictions and you can put barbettes on your free traders or whatever you can get access to.

Having game rules about what is or is not civilian grade is, imho, kind of pointless.

Traditionally, no civilian shipping in the Third Imperium has anything other than lasers, sandcasters, and basic missiles available to it. The AHL ship that Oberlindes has operates outside of the Imperium for that reason. But I wouldn't be at all surprised if there are counter examples in Mongoose's corpus. There's also an example of the other extreme, where the extra-imperial polity restricts civilians to those (game mechanics impaired) PD lasers. But you don't have to agree to any of that for your game, of course.

But since there is no agreement on parameters, there's definitely not going to be agreement on conclusions in a topic like this.

 

[Condottiere]

Vargr cursairs against a cruiser spinal mount, is pretty much like the Rebels getting ambushed at Endor, by the Death Star Tooed.

In theory, it could be mandated that all commercial and private spacecraft have to have pop up turrets, which means that the weapon systems are secured while in port.

Depopping, being considered a hostile act.

 

[swordtart]

Vargr cursairs against a cruiser spinal mount, is pretty much like the Rebels getting ambushed at Endor, by the Death Star Tooed.

In theory, it could be mandated that all commercial and private spacecraft have to have pop up turrets, which means that the weapon systems are secured while in port.

Depopping, being considered a hostile act.

Opening fire would be unequivocally hostile and the time interval between the two would be negligible, I doubt it would provide any more protection against hostile intent. It is the equivalent of concealed and open carry. Some states in the US make open-carry to be less regulated than concealed carry others chose the opposite route for various reasons. Those that allow you to carry in whatever way accept that carrying a gun in accordance with the law does not show intent to harm. All agree that shooting someone definitely shows intent to harm.

Unless you can externally enforce the lock-down it might at best reduce the incidence of accidental firing, but I would expect the firing chain to un-pop any turret by default rather than require turret extension as a discrete act.

Fixed mounts also cannot be pop-up so it won't help there.

If you are paranoid about people having weapons that might cause large-scale damage (however you wish to define that) then an outright ban is the simplest route. People who want to burn down your town probably aren't that bothered by your bans though so you need to be able to enforce it without driving all trade away.

The difference between a ship scale 1D or 2D weapon with infinite shots and a 4D weapon with limited ammunition seems entirely academic to me. Both are going to cause chaos if fired at ground target (but so could a sand caster for that matter).

We are also assuming that the anti-ship missile can be effectively fired in atmosphere. It has no need to be aerodynamic, it has no need to have lift surfaces as in space it is unaffected by gravity. It is normally targeting a big thing in a whole lot of nothing. Achieving the same with a sensor picture in a congested environment with ground clutter is a very different use case. What is the sensor actually detecting, which ground targets produce similar sensor returns. What is the fusing and warhead of the anti-ship missile optimised for?

I am not sure what problem we are trying to solve.

 

[Condottiere]

For fixed mounts, I figure pop up is concealing them, in that they may be mostly internal, but still visible.

 

[phavoc]

Same as you laser as long as it has ammo.

Just like a laser

As a former Redleg I can tell you that's not a correct statement.

Artillery barrels have a finite life before they lose accuracy and then just fail. Total failure is considered a "bad thing" because, depending on the failure, you may die when pulling that lanyard/pressing that button.

Every artillery round downrange impacts the accuracy of the round. The liner, at first, degrades little, so accuracy is not affected. But, over time, the liner degrades with every round, and also other factors, so the accuracy downrange can begin to get impacted more and more. The type of round and the type of target matter, as if you are firing air-burst rounds at unprotected targets, accuracy isn't as big of a deal (within reason). But if you are firing on a protected target with an impact round, accuracy matters.

Eventually that liner will wear out and your rounds will be ineffective because you aren't hitting anywhere near your target. And after that your barrel will fail, which is the "bad thing" mentioned above.

In extreme situations, such as the German WW1 rail guns that ranged on Paris, the liner degradation was actually baked into the rounds - each round was fired in a very specific sequence that took into account the liner degradation, as each one was slightly larger than the previous one. This kept the gun firing, more or less, accurately until the liner degraded to the point of not be useful and had to be replaced.

Of course, if you are standing in front of a wall and just shooting at the wall over and over, this means nothing (till the "bad thing" occurs).

So yeah, you can't just shoot till you run out of ammo without consequences. At least not in reality with today's materials.

 

[Condottiere]

I don't know how that works with energy weapons and gauss ones.

However, I understand that the Germans switched to smoothbores for their tank guns, with the ammunition doing the self correcting.

Probably the same advantage for smart rounds.

Ensuring longevity of rifled barrels is rate of fire, to minimize heating, and how much gun powder you pack into it, per shell.