Nuclear Dampers - the hitting issue?

[Chas]

How are nuclear dampers supposed to work with regards effect and numbers of shots against it?

With the current rules you need to use the damper before the fusion guns actually hit, with the use wasted - this needs revision.

But how does it work regards multiple hits? You are allowed to transfer damage reduction of one successful use (and effect will make a 5 screen combo reduce much more than a single fusion gun blast) across to another hit? I believe for these to be viable it should be so.

 

[Nerhesi]

I think that should be after the attack. After all - this is not like one hit that comes instantly - it is an attack happening over 6 minutes.

For fleet scale, the simplest way as discussed earlier, prevent X for the turn.

 

[Chas]

There's another point to keep in mind here too. The same tactics in fleet combat for mesons will apply here. Nuclear dampers are far too big and expensive to use in massed numbers. They are not easy to implement. Which means the nuclear missile is still very much a feasible weapon, and especially on a fleet scale where multiple ships will target one defender, overwhelming PD and dampers. A nuclear missile is not expensive in comparison to a damper. Which significantly impacts missile tactics. That extra damage from a nuclear missile is bad news in bay level weapon systems.

 

[Chas]

You also have to question the viability of dampers.

At 5 dampers = 50 tons = 50 MCr you get 7 x4 = 28 damage reduction on nuclear missiles with your expert screen gunner.

A bay of nuclear missiles at 50 tons is MCr 12 for bay plus 144 x .45 = 64.8 MCr for a full bay of nuclear missiles, total 76.8MCr vs 50MCr of the dampers. Each salvo does 12 x 6 = 72 pts after TL15 armor, a worse case situation, with 12 salvos in the bays (or spreading the cost to say a mix of missiles in the bay and your turrets). Ignoring PD it's nothing like a worthwhile investment.

If we assume PD is doing it's job we also need to consider which is more worthwhile - money and volume in PD, or nuclear dampers - it must be a better investment in PD, there's no reason to choose dampers unless for whatever reason unless you've capped out your PD, in fact you'd be silly to put resources in dampers for missile effects, PD works against both missiles and torps and has to be prioritized. So that really only leaves us with dampers for fusion bays.

Against a fully nuclear and fusion bay armed opponent you will get into trouble quickly - are you better having dampers or investing in more damage output? Given battles between fleets will be short and bloody, he who hits hardest first wins... I'd say you'll want more offensive clout.

Thoughts?

 

[Chas]

One thing, I think nuclear dampers should be relatively cheap and easy to implement on a cost basis. They can take up tonnage, but they need to be allowed to be built into ships with minimal impact to the budget - I think most people have assumed they will be part of the game in the various weapon paradigm designs, no?

 

[phavoc]

Under the original concept, nuclear dampers erected a field by which all nuclear munitions coming into it could not go super-critical and detonate. So nuclear missiles and torpedoes were ineffectual at the nuclear level. You could also have a nuclear damper essentially 'freeze' the half-life of something, so it was possible your gunship could be toting around californium rounds (with a half-life of 45min) indefinitely until you shot somebody and they went sub-critical upon impact.

I think nuclear dampers should still have a spherical effect for craft. But, like other screens, they have a declining effect over their usage (e.g. they are 100% effective against 1 round, 1% effect against a hundred rounds). And they should have NO effect against fusion or plasma rounds, since the nuclear activity occurred at the LAUNCHING site, and the impact site doesn't undergo nuclear reaction, just plain-ol reactions against very hot plasma. Or, you could say that a nuclear damper protects against the radiation hit, but not from any damage. Fusion and plasma weaponry are very short-ranged, and there should be a bonus to close and engage.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

It would make everyones lives simpler if screens worked like in ye olden days and simply prevented X% of all attacks, but Mongoose doesn't seem to like that.

 

[Nerhesi]

I believe the plan is to have them prevent X damage. Where X is a value based on single die roll, operator (average) skill, and # of screens. We should be looking to ensure the rules match that simplicity.

 

[phavoc]

It would make everyones lives simpler if screens worked like in ye olden days and simply prevented X% of all attacks, but Mongoose doesn't seem to like that.

I agree. They degraded incoming attacks. I still don't like the 'angle the deflector screens' idea... too hooky for my Traveller tastes. About the only place I'd say it belongs would be in the sub-2000 ton craft where role-play was possible. Capital ships are crewed by a bunch of NPC's, so everything should be average and just plain die rolls. And since we don't actually HAVE deflector screens, the angle idea just doesn't make a lot of sense. But I know it's now new canon... doesn't mean I have to like it or use it.. or stop harping on how silly it is. Just means it probably ain't gonna change.

I believe the plan is to have them prevent X damage. Where X is a value based on single die roll, operator (average) skill, and # of screens. We should be looking to ensure the rules match that simplicity.

If we do that, we should simply have a table, roll the die for effectiveness fofor that round. Maybe your skill level lets you bump it up by one. That's it. I would prefer that for the round the screen acts like that to ALL incoming fire.

OR each screen you have installed means you can choose to allocate a screen to an incoming attack salvo. The attacker gets to group up their ships, and you, the defender, can determine when you want to use a SINGLE screen against an attack. That way you don't have super-duper defenses, just some ok ones. And both sides have to make the tactical decisions on how best to handle their actions.

 

[Nerhesi]

I believe me and you were aligned here Phavoc but we have to bow to greater design direction. When we've made our preferred case several times, and Matt has restated his - that is usually clear direction for me to try to fit within his vision rather than restart from the ground up. Saying that, here is what I have gathered so far:

8+ Effect
Effect x 2D
Screens can only be used once per turn
Screen operator can use any numbers of screens but only once. Therefore, multiple screen operators are required to fend off multiple attacks.

Example: 5 screen operators, each available to operate any portion of the 200 screens available. (whether it is 40 each, or 196 for one operator and then 1 each for the remaining).

Fleet combat:
I think, like you... I'm hoping that for fleet combat we will see a table that has basically a range from lets say 2 to 30. You roll on this table and multiply that by the number of screens you have and that is the total value of damage stopped this turn. This cannot be divide amongst more incoming attacks (barrages, salvos, etc) than you have screen operators.

A simple and clear method - and I did provide a table to do so, but now I'll just wait to see the draft from our glorious leader Matthias

 

[phavoc]

That's a outrageously large number of screens! I think overall screens need to be limited by hull size. A 500,000 Dton Tigress should be the upper limit (say 10?), and a 5,000 ton destroyer gets a single screen. That gives an average tonnage cruiser like 5 screens or so. It should be assumed they have an operator, so it's really just a roll of the die for that attack - assuming the defender wants to use them.

The point of doing it that way is to allow the defender to defend, but the attacker can divide up their attacks into say 10, and which 10 is the defender going to defend against? Plus you want to be able to overwhelm his defenses. That's how attacking works, in any era and for any defense.

And I don't want to defer, even after it's been blessed. Maybe there's somebody else out there that agrees with me and wants to use the proposed rule instead of what is in the book. Yeah, I know, a rebel looking for a cause...

 

[Nerhesi]

The # of screens is massively increased compared to MGT1.. but then again, why would ships have 1000s of turrets but not screens? I think previously that was a bit of disparity.

Also in T5.. it's pretty silly ridiculous now.. with a single 20-ton screen giving you inifinite, 100% dependable protection to all 1000dton ships against meson for example (just straight up guaranteed, you can't penetrate).

So Screens seemed to be this thing where it fluctuated from edition to edition... but it was an adhoc limit before (whether it was 1, 6, 9 , 12 or whatever)

 

[AnotherDilbert]

If that is the way it is going to be, then so be it. The time to discuss alternate systems is over.

 

[Nerhesi]

If that is the way it is going to be, then so be it. The time to discuss alternate systems is over.

I usually get that sense after an item I've made recommendations on receives attention several times.

Example:
Missile Resolution Systems
General Advantages/disadvantages
% weight saving per TL on spinals

All the above I had specific recommendations for, and when matt came back with slightly altered results, I got the idea. You then just have to shift gears and ask yourself "how can I make sure X works while working in this paradigm, not trying to create a new one"

 

[phavoc]

The # of screens is massively increased compared to MGT1.. but then again, why would ships have 1000s of turrets but not screens? I think previously that was a bit of disparity.

Also in T5.. it's pretty silly ridiculous now.. with a single 20-ton screen giving you inifinite, 100% dependable protection to all 1000dton ships against meson for example (just straight up guaranteed, you can't penetrate).

So Screens seemed to be this thing where it fluctuated from edition to edition... but it was an adhoc limit before (whether it was 1, 6, 9 , 12 or whatever)

Cause bays topped out at 100 Dtons. Which makes no sense on really massive ships. Now we have turrets the size of subsidized merchants. We are getting closer to the naval paradigm of you build a ship around your primary armaments. Secondary things like turrets get crammed in wherever they fit.

Reminds me of Star Blazers. For long range combat they often fired the forward turrets. But at closer range they would turn and bring all the guns to bear (at least the port or starboard side). Very similar to naval combat. Though Traveller has no crossing of the "T". Used to be ship design influenced your weapons to bear percentages.

 

[phavoc]

The # of screens is massively increased compared to MGT1.. but then again, why would ships have 1000s of turrets but not screens? I think previously that was a bit of disparity.

Also in T5.. it's pretty silly ridiculous now.. with a single 20-ton screen giving you inifinite, 100% dependable protection to all 1000dton ships against meson for example (just straight up guaranteed, you can't penetrate).

So Screens seemed to be this thing where it fluctuated from edition to edition... but it was an adhoc limit before (whether it was 1, 6, 9 , 12 or whatever)

Cause bays topped out at 100 Dtons. Which makes no sense on really massive ships. Now we have turrets the size of subsidized merchants. We are getting closer to the naval paradigm of you build a ship around your primary armaments. Secondary things like turrets get crammed in wherever they fit.

Reminds me of Star Blazers. For long range combat they often fired the forward turrets. But at closer range they would turn and bring all the guns to bear (at least the port or starboard side). Very similar to naval combat. Though Traveller has no crossing of the "T". Used to be ship design influenced your weapons to bear percentages.

 

[Nerhesi]

I remember that aspect for cap-ships. Needle 80% weapon bearing. Sphere? 70%

But since we've always had ships with 1 and ships with 1000 turrets (or bays), it wouldn't make sense to have screens limited arbitrarily. We'd go back to the day of carry 5 or 6 screens - whatever ur powerplant allowed.

 

[phavoc]

I remember that aspect for cap-ships. Needle 80% weapon bearing. Sphere? 70%

But since we've always had ships with 1 and ships with 1000 turrets (or bays), it wouldn't make sense to have screens limited arbitrarily. We'd go back to the day of carry 5 or 6 screens - whatever ur powerplant allowed.

That would depend on how you described your screens working. Used to be you could only have a single black globe, or white globe. You could have the same thing about screens, making them a concentric shell. It may simply be easier to assume that any defender would turn them all on every turn they could, but really, it's just simpler to have a single screen, with say backup generators to cover battle damage. But within reason. A primary, and secondary, with maybe a tertiary would be a LOT to install. Or should be. Traveller universe has always really been about old-fashioned armor protecting you from the big-bad-meany types.

This is a perfect place to mention the old standby, Active Armor! If Enterprise could have it, so should you! Charge that hull plating and watch those radiation hits be reduced to, well, cook is dead, but we'll always have meal packs! Whoops, if you energize the hull plating again you'd see that nasty plasma round cook the hull, but not melt through to... well, who needed meal packs anyway! At least it didn't take out the medbay where Doc just popped Cookie into a emergency low berth! With a little luck and a few months in a regen tank we'll have the 3rd best rice pudding in the sub-sector again!!!

 

[Chas]

This is one thing though that impacts the game dynamics and I personally really would like to see it simplified:
- x number of screens needed to cover a ship of y size
- 2D and 1DD removed for z power points (and increase this power point burn a lot)
- cost relatively low (they can be implemented without great resource burn in expense or tonnage)

That's it.

 

[Chas]

I'm going to add something here directed primarily at Matt because I think it does need to be said. With all due respect to the accepted way of going about things in Traveller I personally don't see that including an angle screen roll is doing anything for the playability of the game. It's an extra roll when people don't really want an extra roll. Having nuclear dampers in ship design is a nice tactical consideration, the ship either has it or it doesn't, and nuclear weapons get the crimp they need.

Beyond that we're getting to the point of 'oh it's a nuclear missile, hold everything while we work this out'... okay, launch and range calculations, ah, did I have a lock on target, okay calculate that, time to target, now electronic warfare... this is any complex add together and roll to attack the missile, and now electronic warfare to break the lock, and where's the missile? here it is... time for PD, let's work through that, look stuff up and roll... okay PD's done, now what about the screen, now let's go and look at this, more calculations... what did you say the screen skill was... how many screens are they using? what's the power drain, there was an ion attack last round, right roll for that, effect? what does effect do?... now actually do the attack and damage and crits.

Let's just have a flat reduction on nuclear weapons please.