sideranautae
Mongoose
CosmicGamer said:
???? I'm referring to the damage multiplier and reduction from spacecraft to vehicles. What are you referring to?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
No grav tanks needed at higher TL's
- Thread starter sideranautae
- Start date
???? I'm referring to the damage multiplier and reduction from spacecraft to vehicles. What are you referring to?
CosmicGamer
Mongoose
Do you only mean who would win in a one on one fight? I don't consider that shootout "dominating the battlefield" as you put it. (Plus, the outcome is not as obvious as one might think - I'll work up details to post later.) Thus the numerous other things I mentioned in my post where a grav tank might have an advantage over a small craft.sideranautae said:???? I'm referring to the damage multiplier and reduction from spacecraft to vehicles. What are you referring to?
CosmicGamer
Mongoose
FYI, I edited my previous post adding:
Crewing
A Grav tank has a crew of 2. One can fly and one can shoot. A Light Fighter only has a crew of one who needs to fly and shoot. I forget where, but I think there is a rule for -DM due to trying to do two things at once. Even if there is no rule, it isn't breaking the rules for a GM to impose a penalty.
Scale
The rules use the term "Starship scale" when discussing modifiers. A small craft light fighter is 10 tons. A Grav Tank is 12 tons. Do the rules really mean for such a small craft to be considered on the same scale as a ship that is thousands of tons?
A Vehicle could be considered something other than personal scale. The rules already say that an attacker (people, other vehicles and ships too? or just people?) gets a +1DM to hit most vehicles because of their size.
Crewing
A Grav tank has a crew of 2. One can fly and one can shoot. A Light Fighter only has a crew of one who needs to fly and shoot. I forget where, but I think there is a rule for -DM due to trying to do two things at once. Even if there is no rule, it isn't breaking the rules for a GM to impose a penalty.
Scale
The rules use the term "Starship scale" when discussing modifiers. A small craft light fighter is 10 tons. A Grav Tank is 12 tons. Do the rules really mean for such a small craft to be considered on the same scale as a ship that is thousands of tons?
A Vehicle could be considered something other than personal scale. The rules already say that an attacker (people, other vehicles and ships too? or just people?) gets a +1DM to hit most vehicles because of their size.
sideranautae
Mongoose
CosmicGamer said:FYI, I edited my previous post adding:
Crewing
A Grav tank has a crew of 2. One can fly and one can shoot. A Light Fighter only has a crew of one who needs to fly and shoot. I forget where, but I think there is a rule for -DM due to trying to do two things at once. Even if there is no rule, it isn't breaking the rules for a GM to impose a penalty.
Scale
The rules use the term "Starship scale" when discussing modifiers. A small craft light fighter is 10 tons. A Grav Tank is 12 tons.
Actually they are discussing the toughness of a space going hull. If you reread them you'll see that THAT is the difference used to justify the toughness. One is designed for outerspace and one is not.
CosmicGamer
Mongoose
As promised
Grav Tank
2x 12mm Gause Canon 10d6 Mega-AP each
80 Armor on all sides
12 Hull
12 Structure
Light Fighter small craft
Single pulse laser 1d6
2 Armor
0 Hull
1 Structure
Some details
- Skill levels will be level 2 with no characteristic DMs.
- Lets say there is 1 tank and 1 fighter. The question was if the "battlefield would be dominated" by the small craft vs grav tanks so I was going to put in more tanks than fighters but after working the numbers decided it wasn't needed.
- I'll be using averages instead of rolling everything up.
- Somebody has to have initiative. Have to pick someone so I'll say that since tanks have 2 crew each specialized for their task vs a fighter with one crew doing it all that the tank is more likely to have initiative.
Some calculations
Vehicle hit tables
Chance to hit Armor (on a 7) is about 16.7%
Chance to hit Hull (on a 2, 6, 8, or 12) is about 33.4%
Small craft hit table
Chance to hit Armor (on a 7) is about 16.7%
Chance to hit Hull (on a 2, 6, 8 ) is about 30.6%
Let's lay out some of the rules, both by the books and some "personal interpretation and what I call filling in the blanks". I'm trying not to do anything that is specifically opposed to the rules for this example.
Core rules page 151: Spacecraft Weapons and Personal Combat states that "Starship weapons are incredibly powerful and destructive – multiply the damage from a starship weapon by 50 to get the damage in personal-scale terms."
Book 1 Mercenary page 73: Ground Force Weaponry against Starshipscale Targets states that "Gaining a +4DM bonus to hit anything on the starship-scale, ground force weaponry must divide its damage by 50 before comparing it to a starship-scale target’s armour." I guess if a small craft is considered starship scale for the damage divisor, it should also be starship scale for the +4DM.
Rate of Fire
Book 1 Mercenary page 73: "starship weapons are not designed for engaging ground targets and so their rate of fire is painfully slow, able to fire weapons only once every three Combat rounds, and some weapons are utterly useless". Since the fighter can only fire once every 3 rounds, it seams reasonable to say firing takes three rounds and does not occure in round one or two.
Range, Weapons Lock, and other miscellaneous DMs
Not going to deal with it atm.
Armor piercing.
The tanks Mega-AP ignores 40 points of armor. Divided by 50 then rounded up is 1 point of spacecraft armor piercing.
Round one
Tanks target one of the fighters.
With a +4 to hit and skill of 2, it's a sure thing to hit if there are no other DMs. Average effect of +5. Mega-AP gets through the first point of fighter armor. One could say you need at least 75 points of damage (75/50 = 1.5 rounded up to 2) to get through the second point of armor and do a point of damage to the fighter.
The average damage for 10d6 will be 35. There are two canons on a tank so that's 70 points of damage +5 for the effect and we get a single hit on the fighter.
Round 2
Same as round 1.
Round 3
the tank has initiative over the fighter and gets one more hit.
Total of 3 single hits on a fighter before it attacks.
With about a 30% chance of a hull hit, there is a good chance one of the three will be. The fighter has no hull points so instead it will be structure. With only one point of structure, it is reduced to 0 and the ship is destroyed.
This is by no means a certainty. If the fighter gets to fire on the tank, it is more likely to miss than the tank but the fighter has a better chance of getting through its opponents armor.
If the fighter does hit, it does 1d6 damage.
Roll a 1 and it does not get through the 80 points of armor. Around 17% chance
Roll a 2 and do 100 damage -80 armor = 20 = a single tripple hit. 50% chance it is a hull or armor hit which the tank can easily take. About a 22% chance of taking out the weapon. About 17% chance of taking out the drive.
Roll a 3 and its something like 5 triple hits and a single. Half of them taken on hull and armor. The remaining take out systems and disable the tank.
Roll a 6 and there is a good chance nothing is left working on the tank but could still be there.
So another consideration I see is that the fighter is more likely to be destroyed vs the tank having a chance of being recovered and repairable.
The combatantsCosmicGamer said:the outcome is not as obvious as one might think - I'll work up details to post later.
Grav Tank
2x 12mm Gause Canon 10d6 Mega-AP each
80 Armor on all sides
12 Hull
12 Structure
Light Fighter small craft
Single pulse laser 1d6
2 Armor
0 Hull
1 Structure
Some details
- Skill levels will be level 2 with no characteristic DMs.
- Lets say there is 1 tank and 1 fighter. The question was if the "battlefield would be dominated" by the small craft vs grav tanks so I was going to put in more tanks than fighters but after working the numbers decided it wasn't needed.
- I'll be using averages instead of rolling everything up.
- Somebody has to have initiative. Have to pick someone so I'll say that since tanks have 2 crew each specialized for their task vs a fighter with one crew doing it all that the tank is more likely to have initiative.
Some calculations
Vehicle hit tables
Chance to hit Armor (on a 7) is about 16.7%
Chance to hit Hull (on a 2, 6, 8, or 12) is about 33.4%
Small craft hit table
Chance to hit Armor (on a 7) is about 16.7%
Chance to hit Hull (on a 2, 6, 8 ) is about 30.6%
Let's lay out some of the rules, both by the books and some "personal interpretation and what I call filling in the blanks". I'm trying not to do anything that is specifically opposed to the rules for this example.
Core rules page 151: Spacecraft Weapons and Personal Combat states that "Starship weapons are incredibly powerful and destructive – multiply the damage from a starship weapon by 50 to get the damage in personal-scale terms."
Book 1 Mercenary page 73: Ground Force Weaponry against Starshipscale Targets states that "Gaining a +4DM bonus to hit anything on the starship-scale, ground force weaponry must divide its damage by 50 before comparing it to a starship-scale target’s armour." I guess if a small craft is considered starship scale for the damage divisor, it should also be starship scale for the +4DM.
Rate of Fire
Book 1 Mercenary page 73: "starship weapons are not designed for engaging ground targets and so their rate of fire is painfully slow, able to fire weapons only once every three Combat rounds, and some weapons are utterly useless". Since the fighter can only fire once every 3 rounds, it seams reasonable to say firing takes three rounds and does not occure in round one or two.
Range, Weapons Lock, and other miscellaneous DMs
Not going to deal with it atm.
Armor piercing.
The tanks Mega-AP ignores 40 points of armor. Divided by 50 then rounded up is 1 point of spacecraft armor piercing.
Round one
Tanks target one of the fighters.
With a +4 to hit and skill of 2, it's a sure thing to hit if there are no other DMs. Average effect of +5. Mega-AP gets through the first point of fighter armor. One could say you need at least 75 points of damage (75/50 = 1.5 rounded up to 2) to get through the second point of armor and do a point of damage to the fighter.
The average damage for 10d6 will be 35. There are two canons on a tank so that's 70 points of damage +5 for the effect and we get a single hit on the fighter.
Round 2
Same as round 1.
Round 3
the tank has initiative over the fighter and gets one more hit.
Total of 3 single hits on a fighter before it attacks.
With about a 30% chance of a hull hit, there is a good chance one of the three will be. The fighter has no hull points so instead it will be structure. With only one point of structure, it is reduced to 0 and the ship is destroyed.
This is by no means a certainty. If the fighter gets to fire on the tank, it is more likely to miss than the tank but the fighter has a better chance of getting through its opponents armor.
If the fighter does hit, it does 1d6 damage.
Roll a 1 and it does not get through the 80 points of armor. Around 17% chance
Roll a 2 and do 100 damage -80 armor = 20 = a single tripple hit. 50% chance it is a hull or armor hit which the tank can easily take. About a 22% chance of taking out the weapon. About 17% chance of taking out the drive.
Roll a 3 and its something like 5 triple hits and a single. Half of them taken on hull and armor. The remaining take out systems and disable the tank.
Roll a 6 and there is a good chance nothing is left working on the tank but could still be there.
So another consideration I see is that the fighter is more likely to be destroyed vs the tank having a chance of being recovered and repairable.
Armor piercing.
The tanks Mega-AP ignores 40 points of armor. Divided by 50 then rounded up is 1 point of spacecraft armor piercing.
Most RPG never round up so .8 AP is equal to 0. This is backed up by the example from mercenary where you need to get a full 50 points of damage to get on ship equivalent damage.
Round one
Tanks target one of the fighters.
With a +4 to hit and skill of 2, it's a sure thing to hit if there are no other DMs. Average effect of +5. Mega-AP gets through the first point of fighter armor. One could say you need at least 75 points of damage (75/50 = 1.5 rounded up to 2) to get through the second point of armor and do a point of damage to the fighter.
The average damage for 10d6 will be 35. There are two canons on a tank so that's 70 points of damage +5 for the effect and we get a single hit on the fighter.
As above rounding down and not needing 150 points of damage and by mercenary only adding .5 of the second weapon. You max at 15x6=90 so no chance of damaging the fighter. This means that you need at least 4 weapon firing it tandem 8 if you assume average damage.
Lets also look at cost the grav tank costs 13.3 MCr (from vehicle manual)
The 10 ton fighter costs 9.8 MCr (from High Guard)
sideranautae
Mongoose
CosmicGamer said:The average damage for 10d6 will be 35. There are two canons on a tank so that's 70 points of damage +5 for the effect and we get a single hit on the fighter.
You can't add the two weapon dice together (same as in space combat with 2 laser turrets.) First you roll damage (average = 35/50 = .7 = noreal damage) Ignoring armor isn't equal to damage dice on the hit. You must get a least a point of damage 1st. In this scenario the Small craft could have no armor over a regular hull and you are barely scratching it. Divide by 50 comes at the beginning of the formula...
CosmicGamer
Mongoose
The tank has a turret and I could be wrong, but I thought that the two weapons in the same turret could be combined.sideranautae said:You can't add the two weapon dice together (same as in space combat with 2 laser turrets.)
It brings up another interesting point though. The tank can rotate it's guns, the fighter can not.
CosmicGamer
Mongoose
Interesting. Thank you for pointing out the example mentions rounding down. I never saw this in the rules.tuz_sen said:Most RPG never round up so .8 AP is equal to 0. This is backed up by the example from mercenary where you need to get a full 50 points of damage to get on ship equivalent damage.
CosmicGamer
Mongoose
While there is up front cost
While it is not a fair fight, again, the concept was dominating the battlefield, so if a small craft can "dominate" it should be able to handle a little inequality, no?
Lets change things from a Grav Tank to
One G/Carrier Heavy Variant
RF Plasma B Gun 14d6 Ultra Destructive
VRF Gauss Gun 5d6 AP
VRF Gauss Gun 5d6 AP
25 Armor
30 Hull
30 Structure
And a 6 man squad
1 medic with a 3d6 ACR
1 comms with a 3d6 ACR
1 sniper with 3d6 rifle
1 explosives expert with a 4d6 gauss rifle
1 with a 5d6 rocket launcher
1 with a 10d6 PGMP
Total = 28d6
Why this combination? See discussion on missions and missions 1 and 2 later on in this post.
Armor Piercing.
Tank: The 14d6 Ultra Destructive ignores 70 points of armor. 70/50 = 1 point of armor ignored.
Damage.
Using Mercenaries combined fire, we have
Tank main weapon 14d6 + Tank secondary weapons 1/2 10d6 + the squads 1/2 28d6 for 33d6.
Round 1
33d6 average is 115.5. Divide by 50 and we get 2 points. 1 point for the armor remaining after armor piercing and 1 point for a single hit.
Round 2 and Round 3 and results are as I mentioned in earlier post. 3 hits, one likely to go through and destroy the fighter, perhaps before the fighter even has a chance to roll for an attack.
Ok, so that G/Carrier is a bit more expensive. Well, lets just throw more men at the problem.
For simplicity, a 8 person anti fighter squad with 10d6 PGMPs.
No armor piercing.
Damage = 1st 10d6 + 1/2 70d6 = 45d6 averaging 157.5 damage / 50 = 3 which does 1 point of damage after armor.
All the above is of course assuming they all hit and do average damage and the hit location is as per averages and the fighter does not have initiative. This time, for simplicity and in the small craft fighters advantage, I did not account for the average positive attack effect to damage.
It's time to throw fighting small craft vs grav vehicle out the window and show some differences based on combat missions. The concept is "battlefield would be dominated by armoured small craft over grav tank vehicles" a "battlefield" is a complex environment needing a variety of tactics based on the mission.
1) Rate of Fire Mission: Rescue hostages being held by terrorists.
Support ground ops by taking out a guard tower, taking out a nearby bridge to prevent ground reinforcements from the nearby town arriving, provide cover and suppression fire.
Small craft can fire once every three rounds while a vehicle can take out numerous targets and provide more continuous cover and suppression fire.
2) Maneuverability Mission: Rescue hostages being held by terrorists.
Pick up hostages after ground forces have retrieved them.
I'm not sure if there is any rule that states otherwise, but my impression is that streamlined small craft are more like a airplane when in an atmosphere. They can not hover and need a decent space for approaching and landing. Grav vehicles seam to have more maneuverability, would be more like a helicopter.
3) Electronics Mission: Seek out a target that is hiding.
Core rules Fighter has standard electronics -4DM. Tank has advanced electronics +1DM.
part of what my example was meant to show was a fighter can possibly be DESTROYED by a Single Hit and a tank being able to take some hits. Some extensive and expensive repairs, but the tank could be put back in service vs a whole new small craft fighter is needed.tuz_sen said:Lets also look at cost the grav tank costs 13.3 MCr (from vehicle manual) The 10 ton fighter costs 9.8 MCr (from High Guard)
While it is not a fair fight, again, the concept was dominating the battlefield, so if a small craft can "dominate" it should be able to handle a little inequality, no?
Lets change things from a Grav Tank to
One G/Carrier Heavy Variant
RF Plasma B Gun 14d6 Ultra Destructive
VRF Gauss Gun 5d6 AP
VRF Gauss Gun 5d6 AP
25 Armor
30 Hull
30 Structure
And a 6 man squad
1 medic with a 3d6 ACR
1 comms with a 3d6 ACR
1 sniper with 3d6 rifle
1 explosives expert with a 4d6 gauss rifle
1 with a 5d6 rocket launcher
1 with a 10d6 PGMP
Total = 28d6
Why this combination? See discussion on missions and missions 1 and 2 later on in this post.
Armor Piercing.
Tank: The 14d6 Ultra Destructive ignores 70 points of armor. 70/50 = 1 point of armor ignored.
Damage.
Using Mercenaries combined fire, we have
Tank main weapon 14d6 + Tank secondary weapons 1/2 10d6 + the squads 1/2 28d6 for 33d6.
Round 1
33d6 average is 115.5. Divide by 50 and we get 2 points. 1 point for the armor remaining after armor piercing and 1 point for a single hit.
Round 2 and Round 3 and results are as I mentioned in earlier post. 3 hits, one likely to go through and destroy the fighter, perhaps before the fighter even has a chance to roll for an attack.
Ok, so that G/Carrier is a bit more expensive. Well, lets just throw more men at the problem.
For simplicity, a 8 person anti fighter squad with 10d6 PGMPs.
No armor piercing.
Damage = 1st 10d6 + 1/2 70d6 = 45d6 averaging 157.5 damage / 50 = 3 which does 1 point of damage after armor.
All the above is of course assuming they all hit and do average damage and the hit location is as per averages and the fighter does not have initiative. This time, for simplicity and in the small craft fighters advantage, I did not account for the average positive attack effect to damage.
It's time to throw fighting small craft vs grav vehicle out the window and show some differences based on combat missions. The concept is "battlefield would be dominated by armoured small craft over grav tank vehicles" a "battlefield" is a complex environment needing a variety of tactics based on the mission.
1) Rate of Fire Mission: Rescue hostages being held by terrorists.
Support ground ops by taking out a guard tower, taking out a nearby bridge to prevent ground reinforcements from the nearby town arriving, provide cover and suppression fire.
Small craft can fire once every three rounds while a vehicle can take out numerous targets and provide more continuous cover and suppression fire.
2) Maneuverability Mission: Rescue hostages being held by terrorists.
Pick up hostages after ground forces have retrieved them.
I'm not sure if there is any rule that states otherwise, but my impression is that streamlined small craft are more like a airplane when in an atmosphere. They can not hover and need a decent space for approaching and landing. Grav vehicles seam to have more maneuverability, would be more like a helicopter.
3) Electronics Mission: Seek out a target that is hiding.
Core rules Fighter has standard electronics -4DM. Tank has advanced electronics +1DM.
sideranautae
Mongoose
CosmicGamer said:The tank has a turret and I could be wrong, but I thought that the two weapons in the same turret could be combined.sideranautae said:You can't add the two weapon dice together (same as in space combat with 2 laser turrets.)
It brings up another interesting point though. The tank can rotate it's guns, the fighter can not.
No. Each weapon in a turret does a separate damage roll. The fighter is grav and can turn easily enough. Also, its weapon range is immense. It can pop up to orbit and hit the tank as easily as it were 100 meters away.
CosmicGamer
Mongoose
As I've mentioned, the small craft is designed for attacking ships, not ground targets. I can easily see the GM imposing additional -DMs for a fighter trying to target something on the ground, especially if doing so from orbit. Isn't this the job of ortillary?sideranautae said:The fighter is grav and can turn easily enough. Also, its weapon range is immense. It can pop up to orbit and hit the tank as easily as it were 100 meters away.
Please, by no means am I saying that the small craft is inferior and isn't VERY capable.
I'm just pointing out ways that it doesn't "dominate" the entire battlefield in all situations.
sideranautae
Mongoose
CosmicGamer said:I'm just pointing out ways that it doesn't "dominate" the entire battlefield in all situations.
I haven't seen yet where it doesn't dominate grav tanks. Which was the original premise. (I said nothing about the "entire battlefield") Still waiting for that proof of concept, if it indeed exists. From everything so far laid out, grav tanks would be short lived items if small craft entered the fray. So, from a force projection point of view, you don't use them if they will be going up against Space fighters. You would only use them if against other tanks or lesser opponents.
I was just looking for anyone to punch a hole in my theory using the rules as written. That's all. It was a good look at the rules. Great dissection by all.
A
Anonymous
Guest
I am sorely tempted to out the elephant in the room on this one.
We need a design sequence that handles all kinds of vehicles, from bicycles to star ships, all in one go. No separate sequences for star ships, system ships or vehicles.
They all need to reference a single scale of combat, no quantum leaps between small arms to vehicles to starships.
I want MgT to be about role playing not table top miniatures/war gaming. There are separate games for that. I may be in the minority - I war gamed a long time ago but now it's really not my thing. I can understand how Mongoose may want cross over from their other titles but a role playing game should start with rules to guide what a PC or NPC would be doing.
We need a design sequence that handles all kinds of vehicles, from bicycles to star ships, all in one go. No separate sequences for star ships, system ships or vehicles.
They all need to reference a single scale of combat, no quantum leaps between small arms to vehicles to starships.
I want MgT to be about role playing not table top miniatures/war gaming. There are separate games for that. I may be in the minority - I war gamed a long time ago but now it's really not my thing. I can understand how Mongoose may want cross over from their other titles but a role playing game should start with rules to guide what a PC or NPC would be doing.
sideranautae
Mongoose
hiro said:We need a design sequence that handles all kinds of vehicles, from bicycles to star ships, all in one go. No separate sequences for star ships, system ships or vehicles.
Mongoose opted out of that possibility when they dumped their 1st Vehicles book and laid a COMPLETELY different design paradigm from ship design one with the new Vehicles book.
Thus, after I complete my work on the Main Rules rewrite, I have to write a vehicle design system...
We need a design sequence that handles all kinds of vehicles, from bicycles to star ships, all in one go. No separate sequences for star ships, system ships or vehicles.
Yes, because it comes down to gaming the rules; something wargamers are terrible for doing. I remember the articles on "truck-burners" in the General (Avalon Hill's magazine) across Panzer Blitz, Squad Leader, etc..
But really, what purpose are ground forces at all when you have "ortillery"? Then that begs the question, how many meson gun emplacements can one stack on a planet? If not them, why not a million missile emplacements? Plus planets, unlike fortresses, can hold out forever, we have so far. But that kills not only grav tanks, but drop troops and all the other stuff.
sideranautae
Mongoose
dragoner said:But really, what purpose are ground forces at all when you have "ortillery"? Then that begs the question, how many meson gun emplacements can one stack on a planet? If not them, why not a million missile emplacements? Plus planets, unlike fortresses, can hold out forever, we have so far. But that kills not only grav tanks, but drop troops and all the other stuff.
You want to take out a corrupt gov on a small pop planet (and then run the place) but don't want to wipe out the civilians. We could have nuked Iraq. That wasn't a politically viable strategy. So, troops and tanks.
sideranautae said:You want to take out a corrupt gov on a small pop planet (and then run the place) but don't want to wipe out the civilians. We could have nuked Iraq. That wasn't a politically viable strategy. So, troops and tanks.
So, you just answered your own question. :wink:
A
Anonymous
Guest
Or you kill the leaders and their cronies with uber tech you can't see... targeted viruses honed to their dna...
The longing for tanks is all about war gaming/miniatures.
The longing for tanks is all about war gaming/miniatures.
CosmicGamer said:I'm just pointing out ways that it doesn't "dominate" the entire battlefield in all situations.
As an aside, if you were a player in my game, and you posted what you posted, you would have shot down the fighter, because that much work is above any dry interpretation of the rules, and deserving of reward.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 150
- Views
- 18K
- Replies
- 167
- Views
- 12K
