Merchants weapons

[Vormaerin]

There's also a point where you have to have some common sense. Yes, the rules let you extend the range on sandcasters, but it's basically meaningless. Sandcasters function by putting a cloud of magic dust in the space between the enemy and they function like missiles that deploy chaff at a designated point. At least, that's how they worked back when they weren't time travelling into the past to block light speed weaponry that you were firing in reaction to.

You can also immediately detonate the canister to make it basically a shotgun to shred nearby personnel, whether in space or atmosphere. Even if you could design a weapon to fire improvised canister at extended range, this isn't a thing that would actually be built. You would build something actually designed to deal with boarding parties, not make your half arsed desperation action into a 3/4 arse desperation action for the very rare times it would come up.

Because for that to actually matter, first you need personnel trying to board by spacewalking while you still have a facing turret weapon manned and functioning. Which is the dictionary definition of seeing a pink unicorn.

 

[Condottiere]

It all depends on what exactly a caster is.

It could be a trebuchet, but I tend to think it's a mass driver.

Existing ammunition performance does indicate it could damage a spacecraft hull, if you assume double dees from a plasma or fusion man portable gun can damage a hull, or any other groundscale weapon system with double dees.

Or, potentially, any damage caused by a groundscale weapon system that manages at least ten points of damage.

Logic might discount a twenty two long rifle with maximized damage achieving that.

But, a light howitzer should manage that.

This is designed as a basic offensive round for a sandcaster. When targeting boarders, pebble canisters cause 1DD damage (Ground scale).

Limited to canonical ammunition types available, a double dee should be sufficient to punch a hole through a low armoured spacecraft hull.

My guess is, it's rather similar to a rocket propelled bunch of ball bearinged warhead, bearing down on a target.

Switch that for a missile warhead, sans guidance and propulsion, that's anywhere between a fragmentation to a bombardment effect.

 

[swordtart]

For anti-boarding actions where sand casters might be used, I would have thought that the leveraging the Smaller Weapons rule (HG2022 p40) would be more efficient and flexible. Depending on the weapon(s) chosen it could eliminate small craft at close range and deal very effectively with personnel. There is a small cargo overhead, but by using lighter weapons you are free of the limitation of hardpoints and firmpoints and can keep the sandcaster ready for any incoming laser fire.

 

[Vormaerin]

I'm sure at some point someone will try to make another attempt at making sandcasters make sense.

Yes, it mentions both Pebble and Anti Personnel sand. No explanation of why you would actually expect to use that or need to stock them. Do someone imagine that boarders are spacewalking onto the ship when the ship has a working turret facing the approach? The way the Anti personnel one is described, apparently you shoot your own ship to kill people outside the hull?

I'm kind of thinking if you explode a regular sand canister in the middle of a crowd, it'll kill everyone pretty nicely too considering it has to expel the particles with enough force to form a meaningful space cloud to ablate the incoming laser fire. And the core rules say it does 8D ground scale damage (More than the anti personnel bomblets).

The sandcutter is may favorite, though. Is there a reaction to reactions phase? Because someone fires a laser at your ship and your gunner instantly fires a can of sand into space at FTL speeds to protect your ship from that specific laser attack. So then the enemy ship (IF Adjacent or Close) can counter fire sandcutters to defeat your sand so that original laser shot is less impaired by your sand... (So we have two reactive launches of sandcans before the original laser can cover 10km).

(I am assuming whoever invented sandcutters thought sandcasters worked like in CT, where you had to deploy them in the missile phase of the previous round and they were physically represented as a sand cloud between the two ships.)

 

[swordtart]

I'm sure at some point someone will try to make another attempt at making sandcasters make sense.

Yes, it mentions both Pebble and Anti Personnel sand. No explanation of why you would actually expect to use that or need to stock them. Do someone imagine that boarders are spacewalking onto the ship when the ship has a working turret facing the approach? The way the Anti personnel one is described, apparently you shoot your own ship to kill people outside the hull?

I'm kind of thinking if you explode a regular sand canister in the middle of a crowd, it'll kill everyone pretty nicely too considering it has to expel the particles with enough force to form a meaningful space cloud to ablate the incoming laser fire. And the core rules say it does 8D ground scale damage (More than the anti personnel bomblets).

The sandcutter is may favorite, though. Is there a reaction to reactions phase? Because someone fires a laser at your ship and your gunner instantly fires a can of sand into space at FTL speeds to protect your ship from that specific laser attack. So then the enemy ship (IF Adjacent or Close) can counter fire sandcutters to defeat your sand so that original laser shot is less impaired by your sand... (So we have two reactive launches of sandcans before the original laser can cover 10km).

(I am assuming whoever invented sandcutters thought sandcasters worked like in CT, where you had to deploy them in the missile phase of the previous round and they were physically represented as a sand cloud between the two ships.)

Yes, I would treat them like smokescreens (but with inherited velocity). You would put one between yourself and the enemy and give it a little forward thrust on deployment so that you remained in the shadow of it until the following combat round. It should not be a reaction.

I think they wanted to treat it like a diving for cover in ground combat, but not every sort of combat needs to follow the same mechanism.

It would be easier on a top down wargame style of space combat with vectors etc. as you can put a sand counter on the actual map, but that might not be as fun for the yoof who think all wargames should be WH40K and all RPGs should be D&D 5th edition

 

[Condottiere]

Casters have evolved, and just because the descriptive sand tends to be attached, doesn't mean that's the only material, or variations of such, that they can chuck.

Pebble canisters are designed as basic offensive rounds for a sandcaster. Pebble round canisters allow the sandcaster to deal 1d3 damage instead of one damage when used as an attack. They do not provide protection against laser fire.

Which came up in the previous edition.

While the primary purpose of a sandcaster is to block incoming beam attacks, they can also be used as an attack. A sandcaster has a range of Close and inflicts 1 damage.

 

[tytalan]

Since a pebble round does 1DD “ A Destructive weapon is noted in its Damage score with two Ds (for example, if a weapon was listed as having Damage 3DD, it would be Destructive, rolling three dice for damage). A Destructive weapon multiplies the total rolled for Damage by 10. ”or 1d6 times 10 ground scale and the scale “ This is designed as a basic offensive round for a sandcaster. When targeting boarders, pebble canisters cause 1DD damage (Ground scale). ”difference is 10 “ The reverse is true as well. A Traveller attacking a Spacecraft with a Ground scale weapon will divide its damage by 10 (as always, rounding down).” Than let me do the math 1d6 times 10 divided by 10 equals 1d6 ship scale damage. So a pebble round not only damages space walking boarders (if you don’t have a breaching tube and forced linkage) but can also be used to attack small craft used for boarding (I know it’s going to be hard to get through the armor). I’d also allow the defending ship to attempt to attack the breaching tube itself. Also remember a double sandcaster turret firing pebble with both guns is going to do 1d6 +1 + effect vs must small craft that’s actually a possible threat, no it’s not going to take out a heavy fighter but a Cutter or Pinnance that’s a threat. It’s all in the math and how you look at it.

 

[swordtart]

Reviewing my Jump Cutter design I was considering a fighter module. The normal fighter bay module has 4 bays for 6 ton fighters.

I was looking at the cheap as chips Home shield mini-Fighter. For a space fighter you could dispense with the aerofins. As it is only armed with a fixed missile rack there is no need for a Dual Cockpit. With the 1.25 tons saved you can make the only 4 Dtons and add a little extra fuel. Swap out the R-drive for a T6 M-drive and you save enough space for a reload and increase the endurance significantly (but the price moves up to MCr1.9). With a good pilot you have lots of thrust getting the initiative shouldn't be too problematic and you get plenty of chances to evade incoming fire so survival shouldn't be as difficult.

Even if you gave each fighter 1Dton for the docking bay you could fit 6 in a 30 dton module. Each fighter only has 4 missiles, but a missile launched by a fighter counts as a separate salvo. In the jump cutter Q-ship it could easily deploy 18 fighters (if one module is reserved for fighter crews) that could be 18 salvos en-route every round without even considering the 2 hardpoints on the jump cutter itself. If those were Advanced missiles (or you wait until the pirates are at medium range) they would be immune to ECM at long range or less. Each turret can only point defence against a single salvo.

My feeling is that would present quite a tough challenge for the normal pirate to fend off (even staying out of close range and all the dog fighting nonsense).

The fighters can be recovered post combat or just flee for the planet when they have shot their bolt. At just over MCr1 each to be honest they are almost disposable (pilots less so).

I did also design a reflec and BSD armoured, planetoid fighter that came in at 8 Dton and around MCr5. With 10 armour plus the extra 3 vs laser and Thrust M8+R4 for closing (and running) with enough in the tank for plenty of evasive manoeuvres it was probably overly resilient, but it would be a far more effective "Pebble". It would allow 3 barracks in the module for the pilots making it all self contained.

A hybrid buffered planetoid at under MCr2 without the BSD armour (but still with 4 points and optionally the reflec) and T6 in a 4 DTon hull would be a cheap effective compromise.

I might play that out this weekend to see how it pans out against an armed trader, a Corsair and a Corvette. Most will likely take some damage as they can only swat a single fighter per hardpoint and then only if they forgo any point defence.

 

[swordtart]

Casters have evolved, and just because the descriptive sand tends to be attached, doesn't mean that's the only material, or variations of such, that they can chuck.

Pebble canisters are designed as basic offensive rounds for a sandcaster. Pebble round canisters allow the sandcaster to deal 1d3 damage instead of one damage when used as an attack. They do not provide protection against laser fire.

Which came up in the previous edition.

While the primary purpose of a sandcaster is to block incoming beam attacks, they can also be used as an attack. A sandcaster has a range of Close and inflicts 1 damage.

Where are you quoting this from. It seems different to the wording in HG 2022.

"PEBBLE CANISTER - This is designed as a basic offensive round for a sandcaster. When targeting boarders, pebble canisters cause 1DD damage (Ground scale). They do not provide protection against laser, energy or particle weapons."

HG doesn't mention conventional sand as a offensive but CRB 2022 gives us

"Sand may also be directed against incoming boarding parties. If the Gunner (turret) check is successful, each target in the boarding party suffers 8D point of damage at Ground scale (so do not multiply it)."

 

[swordtart]

Since a pebble round does 1DD “ A Destructive weapon is noted in its Damage score with two Ds (for example, if a weapon was listed as having Damage 3DD, it would be Destructive, rolling three dice for damage). A Destructive weapon multiplies the total rolled for Damage by 10. ”or 1d6 times 10 ground scale and the scale “ This is designed as a basic offensive round for a sandcaster. When targeting boarders, pebble canisters cause 1DD damage (Ground scale). ”difference is 10 “ The reverse is true as well. A Traveller attacking a Spacecraft with a Ground scale weapon will divide its damage by 10 (as always, rounding down).” Than let me do the math 1d6 times 10 divided by 10 equals 1d6 ship scale damage. So a pebble round not only damages space walking boarders (if you don’t have a breaching tube and forced linkage) but can also be used to attack small craft used for boarding (I know it’s going to be hard to get through the armor). I’d also allow the defending ship to attempt to attack the breaching tube itself. Also remember a double sandcaster turret firing pebble with both guns is going to do 1d6 +1 + effect vs must small craft that’s actually a possible threat, no it’s not going to take out a heavy fighter but a Cutter or Pinnance that’s a threat. It’s all in the math and how you look at it.

If we want to go purely by the maths an antimaterial rifle with AP ammunition is AP10 (so AP1 for ships) and 5D damage. It has an outside chance of getting 3 points ship scale damage and is pretty likely to get at least 1. With small craft 1 hull damage is enough for a cumulative damage critical.

The HMG also does 5D, can take AP to get AP10 and has auto 3 and covers the whole of Adjacent range.

A disposable plasma launcher is 2DD and so would do 2D at ship scale it can reach out to the limit of Adjacent range.

A VRF Gauss Gun only does 4D so getting 10 points would be tough, but it can also use AP ammo and get AP. It also has auto 8 so could be adding +8 damage for every burst making 2 points damage entirely feasible. Against Vacc Suited boarders it would be devastating.

A Gauss Gun is also pretty credible as a Smaller Weapon on a mount since it is just a magnetic accelerator. At extreme range it could reach into Close range. I would allow that any of the sub 0.25 DTon weapons could be linked in groups for the normal +1 damage per die per extra weapon and as long as the total weight was under 0.25 tons could use a smaller mount.

Lots of nasty options for boarders even before they get on the ship. Once on the ship getting to the bridge to disable the auto defence will be far from straight forward. That is why I think there needs to be a bigger ship at stand off in case the merchant tries anything frisky when the boarding crew are in range. Surrender means let them on unmolested and get the same treatment in return.

 

[Condottiere]

In case anyone has forgotten, Mongoose had their First Edition a while back, and may have been the ones that made sand rather more lethal.

I had an odd notion it was in Trillion, but no, it's Core and High Guard.

 

[Vormaerin]

Well, when you don't use facing on your weapons and you don't use any sort of vector movement, the idea of a sand cloud deployed by a missile like projectile (the original vision of sandcasters) is kind of useless. So might as well make them space shotguns. Still pretty useless since the damage is risible even by civilian standards and the range is cripplingly bad. And most of the canisters are both less likely to be needed AND more expensive than the standard, the win-win of civilian buyer criteria (not).

 

[rinku]

The Anti-personnel cannisters DO mention their use in planetside situations. It's a way to weaponise a space defensive weapon for ground scale fire support. That would be the main use I reckon.

As far as shooting anti-P at boarders goes, it could be a nearby ally doing the honours. Or the ship itself could fire them at boarders on it, with range zero and have them work against targets in sight, but that's just a weaker version of normal sand's 8D damage.

In regards to pebble rounds... well they're only doing 1DD ground scale, so an average of 35 points. Normal sand cannisters do 8D anyway, an average of 28 points and a much more reliable result range; 33% of the time pebbles do 20 points or less and will break your heart. The odds of Sand doing that are around 6%. So maybe... just use Sand anyway? Unless the boarders are armoured up, I guess. You might NEED those 50 and 60 point results...

The description of Pebble rounds omits it, but I would expect it to hit all members of a boarding party if the gunner check is successful, like Sand explicitly does. But if you were to use the rule as it is literally written, it's a single target attack.

Sand and Pebble are the same price and Cr25k isn't that much for an occasional expense. So I could see a ship's captain having a couple in storage and get Pebble rounds loaded up if boarding was immanent. But probably regular sand is best 90% of the time (and most of the remaining 10% would be chaff for extra missile defense).

 

[tytalan]

In regards to pebble rounds... well they're only doing 1DD ground scale, so an average of 35 points. Normal sand cannisters do 8D anyway, an average of 28 points and a much more reliable result range; 33% of the time pebbles do 20 points or less and will break your heart. The odds of Sand doing that are around 6%. So maybe... just use Sand anyway? Unless the boarders are armoured up, I guess. You might NEED those 50 and 60 point results...

The difference is that pebble also does 1D ship scale damage that a range of 1-6 pts damage while the sand only does 8D/10 ship scale damage or 0-4. If a pirate is using a small craft to board which probably should be more common than not. Even if you TL upgrade the sandcaster to give it high yield 2-6 Ship Scale vs 1-4 or very high yield 3-6 vs 2-4. Anyway you look at it the pebble has an advantage vs ships. While I have to agree that statically the sand will have a greater chance of doing more damage vs the boarding parties the pebble has a much better chance of damaging their boarding craft.

 

[rinku]

Happy to see it played out that way - it's YTU - but strictly speaking both of them (and AP rounds) only do damage to boarding parties.

There's a solid argument that just as shotgun pellet rounds are less effective against armour than regular weapons of the same damage, this would apply to Sand and Pebble. And that any ship hull is able to withstand them.

(That does NOT preclude desperate use of any of them against softer targets, like antennas or drones, though).

 

[Condottiere]

What's the typical acceleration factor of a pirate ship?

And at what distance can a merchantman be fairly sure of their identity?

That could be quite a sustained chase, while everything, including the kitchen sink, gets chucked at it.

Having had a look at what happens when tungsten ball bearings get detonated against Russian armoured vehicles, or military installations, I'd say that spacecraft hulls do have the possibility to get shredded.

And a sustained chase allows plenty of those possibilities to take place, especially at dogfight range.

 

[swordtart]

I would suggest that no pirate is going to be getting into a sustained close range chase against a trader if they are in an unarmed small craft (if the sand caster is so potent in YTU).

If they are armed, you might get one shot if you have been completely passive until that point. Once you have shown you are prepared to fight back they will stand off and if they can, just pound you from medium range or beyond (Missiles on a firm point).

If they only have a laser then they'll have to stay close and will be targeting your turret for preference and trading shots one for one. Of course if sand casters are that good, they they can equip the same. The trader is no less vulnerable to 1D than a small craft, and the pirates going this route would be well served to have a decent gunner to offset the fact they only get a single caster. It still seems an unlikely scenario unless the pirates are just there to give the players an easy victory.

Even if they are unarmed and your pirates are attacking on the small boat model (assume target is unarmed, close and board) then they would close as quickly as possible. You don't need much of an M-Drive to outclass a trader and the amount of thrust needed to close from close to adjacent is minor, again you might get one shot off before you are defending against either a boarding tube or desperados in Vacc Suits.

If the enemy has chosen that attack vector they are really not that much of a threat and you could probably defend entirely effectively with a small arms (Auto Gauss with AP for preference) from cover once they are aboard. You are familiar with the layout of your ship and can operate ata home advantage.

If the pirate has deployed the boarding craft from a larger ship and the best you can put up is a sandcaster, then attacking the boarders will just sign your death warrant.

 

[Condottiere]

Assuming all things being equal, which Traveller has neatly complied with, since you only get one hardpoint per hundred tonnes.

A pirate ship can't attack anything bigger that it is, since the target will outgun them.

Same tonnage, means it can go either way, which prolongs combat, and does allow enough time for someone else to join the fight, like law enforcement.

Which means that the pirate's usual prey would have to be smaller, probably substantially, than it.

One thing about energy weapons, is that they have to tap into the spacecraft's existing power point pool, so if anyone gets into a dogfight with another spacecraft that uses weapon systems with power point requirements, odds are the laser equipped one is going to run out of ammunition for those six minutes, before the the power point pool regenerates.

During that close encounter, and especially if you have the caster on a turret, the attacker can get sand blasted sixty times for those six minutes, while most spacecraft allocate exactly four power points per round for a laser based weapon system, before power pool regeneration.

This isn't my alternative universe, it's how combat rules currently are.

 

[tytalan]

Happy to see it played out that way - it's YTU - but strictly speaking both of them (and AP rounds) only do damage to boarding parties.

There's a solid argument that just as shotgun pellet rounds are less effective against armour than regular weapons of the same damage, this would apply to Sand and Pebble. And that any ship hull is able to withstand them.

(That does NOT preclude desperate use of any of them against softer targets, like antennas or drones, though).

No where in the rules does it say pebble rounds can only be used vs boarders in fact the fact that we do have a scale says just the opposite it’s just very hard to do enough damage to have any effect.

 

[swordtart]

Assuming all things being equal, which Traveller has neatly complied with, since you only get one hardpoint per hundred tonnes.
A pirate ship can't attack anything bigger that it is, since the target will outgun them.
Same tonnage, means it can go either way, which prolongs combat, and does allow enough time for someone else to join the fight, like law enforcement.

Never enough time as getting out to the 100D limit can take days.

Which means that the pirate's usual prey would have to be smaller, probably substantially, than it.

And this is the reason I find a chase at close range to be highly unlikely. The big ship stands off and threatens the target with ranged destruction. Once they "heave to" (shut down the drives) then they can send across a small craft with boarders to off-load some cargo. If the target opens fire on the small craft then the small craft does its best to escape while the mothership punishes the target.

One thing about energy weapons, is that they have to tap into the spacecraft's existing power point pool, so if anyone gets into a dogfight with another spacecraft that uses weapon systems with power point requirements, odds are the laser equipped one is going to run out of ammunition for those six minutes, before the the power point pool regenerates.

Big ships don't dogfight. Small craft should not have energy weapons.

Dogfighting also hasn't really been thought out as runs contrary to every small craft that is fitted with an energy weapon. Small craft have fixed points, max range for fixed points is Close and at Close you are dogfighting. No small craft in any of the books is capable of firing an energy weapon for more than a couple of shots as they don't have big enough plants and don't have batteries.

Dogfighting needs completely rewriting as it is nonsense (sorry Mongoose).

During that close encounter, and especially if you have the caster on a turret, the attacker can get sand blasted sixty times for those six minutes, while most spacecraft allocate exactly four power points per round for a laser based weapon system, before power pool regeneration.

So the logical conclusion from your point is that anyone who puts themselves in that position is at a massive disadvantage. Why would any pirate do so?

It should be noted however that a small craft can have any number of smaller weapons that can be operated from fixed mounts that don't consume firm points or power. If your pirate is closing to board having a number of vehicle or personal weapons facing forward wouldn't be much of a problem. A medium Gauss Canon would only use 1 Dton, does 1DD, has AP10(AP1 ship scale and double that with AP rounds), Auto 3 and has a magazine of 200 rounds. It has an extreme range of 8km, so it is plenty capable for dogfighting.

This isn't my alternative universe, it's how combat rules currently are.

Remember when dogfighting you use the vehicle combat rules, not the spaceship combat rules. I find it too difficult to resolve it consistently and frankly I have been forced to ignore it. With more work you might be able to make it make sense (for example if you fit only ground scale weapons), but as they stand they just don't work and any conclusions you draw from them are inconsistent with the rest of the game, the example ships and the settings.