Merchants weapons

[rinku]

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.

All good points - plus sand doesn't affect them, but they can't do point defense. PAs are a risky choice on a ship with only one or two turrets.

Although I just realised the old restriction of only one PA in a turret seems to have been dropped. It does look like you could mount a laser (or two) and a PA in the same turret for switchable offense and point defence, so that's nice. Because only one type is firing at the same time, it's not really a power issue. I can see a setup with a single PA and twin lasers (probably beams) in a triple turret, covering all bases (including shooting at high evasion regular targets that the lasers may hit when the PA would miss).

And... I'd be comparing PULSE lasers with PAs in terms of damage. So that's a double PULSE turret, shooting out to Long range, doing 2D+2 and having a +2 to hit, vs 3D with no to hit bonus. Total turret and weapon cost is MCr2.5 for the lasers and MCr4.2 for the PA, both use 9 EP.

While it's true that the PA can engage at Very Long Range, that's a -4 to hit, so criticals aren't likely and misses are. Nonetheless, any unanswered fire is a good thing.

At Long range, where the twin pulse lasers and PAs are both shooting, the lasers have a net +0 to hit while the PA has a -2. I think that largely offsets the average damage of 9 vs 10.5; on average the lasers will have an effect two better than that of the PA, so giving them an extra 2 points of damage. Certainly in terms of raw damage, I would say they're comparable.

Of course, the PA will also cause radiation hits of 2Dx60, which IS enough to overcome a normal hull's protection on a roll of 9+. So is not a trivial point; even suited up in normal vacc suits as well you CAN take rads.

 

[tytalan]

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.

We are not talking real life we are talking the game. And lasers also need to have maintenance done after so many firings.

 

[tytalan]

All good points - plus sand doesn't affect them, but they can't do point defense. PAs are a risky choice on a ship with only one or two turrets.

Actually sand does work vs particle beam and fusion “ Most sandcasters fire canisters of small particles that counteract laser, energy and particle weapons fire” HG pg 38

 

[rinku]

Actually sand does work vs particle beam and fusion “ Most sandcasters fire canisters of small particles that counteract laser, energy and particle weapons fire” HG pg 38

Yeeeeeah...

That's actually a bit of an issue, as the ONLY one of the sandcaster loads listed that might affect "laser, energy and particle weapons fire" is the normal Sand Cannister.

"Its use is covered in the Traveller Core Rulebook, page 168"

Which only mentions lasers. And also only mentions lasers on p.171 where it actually describes how to use it.

But I'm good with sand working vs PAs to some degree, though it'd have thought much less effect than against lasers. I seem to recall that sand had a small effect vs energy weapons in previous editions?

 

[Condottiere]

Sand would either reflect radiation, or absorb energy.

If they were really effective, you'd have battlecruisers with bay versions.

 

[rinku]

Prismatic aerosols in ground combat are definitely laser only. But I fully accept that it may be different in space. For space reasons.

Neither plasma nor particle beams are radiation, though. Photons transfer heat and are affected by the target's reflectivity and colour. Particle beams are just smashing into the target with kinetic energy. Plasma destroys optical mirrors.

 

[Vormaerin]

Prismatic aerosols in ground combat are definitely laser only. But I fully accept that it may be different in space. For space reasons.

Neither plasma nor particle beams are radiation, though. Photons transfer heat and are affected by the target's reflectivity and colour. Particle beams are just smashing into the target with kinetic energy. Plasma destroys optical mirrors.

Be that as it may, both the Fusion Gun and the Particle Accelerator in High Guard have the "radiation" trait.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Particle accelerator weapons have the radiation trait because when the near c particles smash into the target they cause the generation of secondary radiation effects

Beam Weapons - Atomic Rockets

www.projectrho.com

 

[Endie]

Particle accelerator weapons have the radiation trait because when the near c particles smash into the target they cause the generation of secondary radiation effects

Beam Weapons - Atomic Rockets

www.projectrho.com

Indeed: recoil charged particles are the real danger, here:
neutron capture producing gamma rays
(n,p) reactions that eject protons
(n,α) reactions that emit alpha particles.

Edit: looking it up, the gamma rays also produce "Compton scatter electrons" but I cannot pretend to know about that...

 

[tytalan]

Sand would either reflect radiation, or absorb energy.

If they were really effective, you'd have battlecruisers with bay versions.

Battle cruisers have multiple triple sandcasters turrets so I think the reason why they don’t have sandcaster bays is the same reason that bays and barbettes can’t be used for anti missile/torpedo they don’t track fast enough for the interception. I like the description of bays in the Starship Opp Manual not only are they bays of multiple weapons they can also be old battleship style main gun turrets

 

[tytalan]

But I'm good with sand working vs PAs to some degree, though it'd have thought much less effect than against lasers. I seem to recall that sand had a small effect vs energy weapons in previous editions?

Since sand only adds to armor and then only vs a single attack I don’t see it as an issue. Also the particle barbette is really treated like a afterthought in the CRB

 

[rinku]

Particle Barbette is just there to cover the Gazelle.

 

[tytalan]

I found this in specialist forces today “ Paramilitary vessels and civilian ships carrying heavy weaponry or contingents of ground troops are even more suspicious if noticed and may be subject to a detailed scrutiny by the local navy.” I would say anything beyond lasers and sandcasters would qualify as heavy weaponry. It also had this to say “ Legalities can be a problem for starmercs in some areas. A mercenary unit can stow its weapons in shipping crates but an armed ship is a different proposition. Proper licensing and documentation will reassure most port operators and security services but there will always be some unwilling to allow heavily armed outsiders to enter their territory. This may be due to legitimate concerns but there is always a possibility that opponents of the mercenaries or their client might throw legal obstacles in the way. “. Now you may say that’s only Mercs but I would argue that if Mercs are treaded this way then civilians with heavy weapons would actually be placed under greater scrutiny.

 

[Terry Mixon]

Looking through the various Mongoose 2e books, no civilian merchant ships in the Core Rulebook have missile launchers.

In High Guard Update 2022, the Merchant Cruiser has some but is designated as being meant for independent cruising in undeveloped trade areas, which implies not inside the Imperium. The MK Mora cargo carrier has some though it plies fixed trade routes between select class A and B starports in the Spinward Marches and is accompanied by surplus Gazelle Class Escorts, so it smells like it has a special deal. That's it for civilian ships in that book.

In Adventure Class Ships, you have the Armed Trader which is meant to work in areas with where corsairs are known to prowl, the Armored Merchant mentions the pirate infested wildernesses, and the Armed Junker which is a Vargr design for the Extents. No other civilian merchant ships with missile launchers. I find that the fact that the Armed Trader and Armored Merchant have very specific and pointed names and no other civilian vessels have missiles to be telling.

My interpretation is that missiles are not commonplace aboard merchant ships and that could very well mean there are Imperial rules against it. You can play it however you like, but even without saying specifically, Mongoose seems to have made their use in civilian merchant ships very rare and limited to specific situations where either there is a special deal or the vessels are meant for use outside of Imperial borders. YMMV.

 

[Vormaerin]

Yeah, Traveller has always allowed it. Long ago and far away, it used to be de rigeur to have a Laser/Missile/Sandcaster combo turret on a civilian ship. But those are a pretty archaic concept these days.

When you didn't do that, it's almost always a beam laser or a sandcaster. Missiles are just so expensive and need to be fired in volleys to be effective in the current rules. You'd have to KNOW you were likely to face danger to make them worthwhile, not "just in case".

 

[Condottiere]

Someone would have to lay out exactly what's acceptable, either by custom or law.

Or, customize casters to have a larger selection of effective offensive ordnance.

 

[rinku]

Economically, that missile launcher is expensive to run and is taking up the spot of a laser or sandcaster when it comes to defensive weaponry. I don't think it has to be much more than that.

Any particular captain can choose to upgun their ship, and missiles are one of those options. But the vast majority are better off without them.

 

[Condottiere]

There's always my suggestion for the alternative to installing a missile launcher: drop a space mine out of the cargo hatch.

 

[Fluffy Bunny Feet]

There's always my suggestion for the alternative to installing a missile launcher: drop a space mine out of the cargo hatch.

I wouldn't think that likely to be useful in space warfare. A intercept course (even one coming from behind) is unlikely to follow on the same path you did and the mine would immediately be drifting off that course.

 

[Condottiere]

Traveller has them as autonomous containers for missiles.

Or, torpedoes.