Point Defense Weapons

[Vormaerin]

Not everyone plays the OTU. Some may where well have a lot more weapns restrictions in their TUs or homebrews. I have for example (no missiles on civilian ships)

Oh and the defence turret is smaller (0.5dt)

Yes, that's true. But this book is supposedly about the OTU. Traveller 1977, Traveller 5, and Mongoose 1e were basically Traveller cookbooks for homebrew settings. But this stuff is in a OTU setting book, not a general rules supplement. So there should be some way they actually fit into the way things work in the OTU.

 

[Sigtrygg]

I agree with you but would go a little further.

The Mongoose Third Imperium is an ATU, it has too many differences with the CT->T5 OTU most of which come down to one of two factors:
an author who doesn't have enough background knowledge about what the setting can and can not include to maintain setting consistency and thus want to include everything from Star Wars;
an author who just makes stuff up regardless of prior canon or even the rules as written
(a third factor is the "inner circle" not really knowing the setting as well as they should, even MWM who on the one hand says he is bound by canon and then on the other retcons TNE out of existence).

T5 only details Third Imperium "universe" technology - no warp drives, wormhole drives, hyperdrives for example.

This book appears to make up new rules for a system that already exists and should have just been used as it is in HG.

 

[Condottiere]

Taking your points individually:
1) Today guns and missiles can be offensive/defensive. And, as we know today and throughout history, SOME things might work well as dual-purpose (88mm is a great example - anti-tank, artillery and anti-aircraft...even navalized versions), but it's not a universal answer. And, in the example of the 88 - not without changing out shells. So while the cannon remained the same, mounts and shells and even training was different for each variation. A CIWS or SeaRAM is far more effective at anti-missile defense than a rapid-fire 5' gun. Each has their purpose and each excels in different areas - though they can both be employed to shoot at small craft. So yea, Traveller falls within the same concept.

2) A 500 Dton craft is not exactly "agile", and a 1/12 Dton missile is far more agile. I don't see how agility means anything here.

3) I don't know what you are hinting at here unless you are talking about a ship not having any restrictions on mounting ground-weaponry vs. regular ship weaponry. If that's the case, then yes, players will abuse the hell out of it.

4) As I see it the mixed turret was to try to give smaller ships a little of everything. When you have only 1 hardpoint you want to try and cover all your bases.

5) Placement of defensive weaponry is going to be based upon field of fire. But since you can't guarantee you'll only engage the enemy from one vector, ships have to be able to engage in all directions, thus your weapon mounts are predicated upon mission and tactics. For general defense you'd want 360 degree coverage. Generally speaking you try to give yourself the best arc coverage you can. Like a naval ship, starships still have a bow, stern, port, starboard, dorsal and ventral sides.

6) For most point defense, it's going to be all computer-controlled anyways. An operator would prioritize longer-distance, or vague guidelines like torpedoes vs missiles. Beyond that its going to be too fast for a person to intervene and your system will use pre-programed guidelines. That's no different than it is today.

7) For point-defense, a gatling laser makes a lot of sense. A pulse laser, in theory, could do the same, by altering the emitter and releasing more bursts with less energy per burst. But that's never how the books have described them.

8) Grouping your point defense together is a bad idea. One hit and you lose them all. Plus you miss out on coverage. You are better to put them as overlapping.

9) The video is interesting, but logically the spin doesn't give the ship much of an advantage. It's PD cannons were spread around the ship, giving it arcs of fire. The cannons apparently were in continuous fire mode, thus rotating the ship didn't give you advantages - at most it would pass off firing solutions to another cannon. And the missiles were all coming from the same ship inbound, thus they all shared the same attack vector. While it looks cool, it is tactically pretty much meaningless.

1. Navalized version was first; I'm a little vague on the development of the anti aircraft variant, but I think the breakthrough was making everything lighter and faster, like they have currently with modern howitzers. In terms of Traveller weapon systems, unless explicitly stated and outlined, it's trying to figure out how to optimize them for a particular task, like default lasers as point defence, whereas their primary purpose was a reminder to keep your distance.

2. If that gets more incorporated into space combat rules.

3. There are no restrictions on installing ground based weapons, just volume penalties.

4. That's true, seen in the context of our particular subject of point defence, the gunner can choose which weapon system has the most optimal effect, either canister, laser as point defence, or launching a point defence missile, whereas originally, it was half defence and half offence.

5. Weapon system placement and optimal fields of fire, because in the example of the Yamato battleship, those six inch triple turrets were impressively positioned, but better use of that space could have been utilized.

6. Priorities can change.

7. Fire Fusion Steel - it's a concept that's been dropped.

8. I'm not saying you should have a single point of failure; you should certainly be able to retask them, as singles or groups; just that getting fired upon at various angles means that the missile is more likely not to be able to evade.

9. Covers gaps, especially as one or more point defences run out of bullets.

 

[AndrewW]

an author who doesn't have enough background knowledge about what the setting can and can not include to maintain setting consistency and thus want to include everything from Star Wars;
an author who just makes stuff up regardless of prior canon or even the rules as written

Some stuff is specifically put in to support other settings. Everything isn't always for the OTU or ATU.

 

[Sigtrygg]

If it has Third Imperium on the cover? If it is set in the Third Imperium?

 

[Vormaerin]

Some stuff is specifically put in to support other settings. Everything isn't always for the OTU or ATU.

No one cares if Mongoose produces additional rules for other settings. A lot of people would welcome it, actually. But that should be in a *rules* book or an alternate setting book. When its in setting specific sourcebooks and adventures, it gets a big triggering I'm not quite so grognard that I think Mongoose can't change anything. But doing things like dropping personal forcefields into a 3I sector book makes me go wtf? Not just because no such thing was ever suggested as existing before that, but also because if we can make that, why aren't there equivalents on ships and installations or even Starwars like Planetary Shields?
I don't think that PD turrets like introduced in Trailing Frontiers fall into that category. I think the problem is that the rules are not clearly written. The PD array is vastly better in naval combat, but that establishes the concept. The difference here is just in the fire control. My reason for starting this thread is just that I can't see any reason you would ever take a Point Defense Gatling Laser instead of a Beam Laser turret of the same price (or even better, a triple beam laser turret that isn't that much more expensive on a ship pricing scale). Other than, of course, the "You can't have a beam laser turret now for reasons".

Now, for example, say you wanted to make these a thing in the Trailing Frontiers. It would be easy enough. Just state that many of these small states have rules against civilians having space laser weapons that are legal in the Imperium. And maybe a bit about how this causes trouble with trade with the Imperium, because no Imperial merchant wants to trade in the wilds armed with a weaksauce laser instead of a regular one, but that's the local law. That establishes why they exist despite being mechanically feeble and why they are in a sector book instead of elsewhere. But, unless I missed it, there's no such statements anywhere in the book.

 

[Sigtrygg]

I agree.

I am all for detailing more tech options and stuff that exists in sci fi but not in the Third Imperium.

The Third Imperium is not Star Wars, but I would like the rules to cover tech found in Star Wars, Star Trek, Babylon 5, the Expanse, Three Body Problem, Culture, etc

But such tech has no place in the Third Imperium which is based on Foundation, Dumarest, etc.

 

[PogoLeaf]

No one cares if Mongoose produces additional rules for other settings. A lot of people would welcome it, actually. But that should be in a *rules* book or an alternate setting book. When its in setting specific sourcebooks and adventures, it gets a big triggering I'm not quite so grognard that I think Mongoose can't change anything. But doing things like dropping personal forcefields into a 3I sector book makes me go wtf? Not just because no such thing was ever suggested as existing before that, but also because if we can make that, why aren't there equivalents on ships and installations or even Starwars like Planetary Shields?
I don't think that PD turrets like introduced in Trailing Frontiers fall into that category. I think the problem is that the rules are not clearly written. The PD array is vastly better in naval combat, but that establishes the concept. The difference here is just in the fire control. My reason for starting this thread is just that I can't see any reason you would ever take a Point Defense Gatling Laser instead of a Beam Laser turret of the same price (or even better, a triple beam laser turret that isn't that much more expensive on a ship pricing scale). Other than, of course, the "You can't have a beam laser turret now for reasons".

So we do have alternative rules for some of the tech mentioned from other universes in highguard, I forget which but we do have them, shields being an example, and rules for warp and hyper drives but that is rather minor considering some of the wonders that those universes have.

To the meat of your post, you are correct, there is zero reason to take any of the PD stuff in trailing book over a simple multi purpose beam laser, not only is it stronger, but it is longer range and has the +4 that the PD combo does, the combo being both the turret and the Gatlin which is actully more expensive though does save tonnage, albeit minuscule amount.

Further as you said and many after the fully auto mated pdbattery which weighs a full 20 tons and has varying power requirements as the TL improves and depends on which version on go either the gauss version which is cheaper uses slightly less power but requires ammo or the laser which uses more power and no ammo, either way im foggy on the use as I’ve never used one but the tonnage it takes up is justifiable sine you no longer need to house a gunner, and it is automated.

I personally would say the trailing PD stuff needs to be better such as a +6 minimum, cheaper since beam lasers are dirt cheap or in a small automated package removing the gunner need, additionally the text needs clarification a bit as it doesn’t have a use out side of flavour.

P.S. It’s late and I’ve missed points

 

[Condottiere]

Generally speaking, choosing weapons systems tends to depend on your resources and their availability.

All things being equal, then their cost(s) versus performance.

Legality tends to depend on the perceived threat(s), though nuclear missiles are likely still not kosher.

 

[Vormaerin]

Obviously, the DM can just say you can't have beam laser turrets for whatever reason. But the reality is that a Beam Laser Single Turret is:
1 ton, 5 Power, MCr0.7. It can do point defense or fire at +4 for 1D out to medium range.

A tech 12 Point Defense Turret is:
0.5 tons, 3 Power, MCr1. It can do point defense and fire at +4 at close range, +2 at short range for 2d3. It cannot fire at medium range at all.

And that's ignoring (as I generally do) the tech level adjustment rules which would let your Tech 12 beam laser have 2 advantages without exceeding the cost of the PD gatling laser.

(and if money/power isn't a factor, then you can do triple turrets either with 0 power missiles/sandcasters or more beam lasers (if you have the power). Or even stick that gatling laser in one of the extra slots of your triple turret, though that makes your weapon at point defense AND regular shooting than putting a second beam laser in there the way the rules are written.

Again, I'm coming from the point of wanting to like and use the rules. Love the idea of a civilian scale down of Point Defense Arrays. But other than some edge case where 5 power instead of 3 power breaks your design, there is absolutely mechanical purpose to the system as written. And various bits of it, I literally can't parse the meaning of the rules (like the hard point comment). I had been hoping that I was just not grokking the rules, but it seems that there's just no 'there' there to grok.

 

[PogoLeaf]

And all these bonuses aren’t taking into account the laser weapon bonus for point defence reaction (core rule book) so I dunno would I would say or request as a change it seems to be clear that it should be addressed it’s either a useless addition, or a poorly written addition. Either way I think a post should be made in the trailing book thread now that the first edit has been done