Ship ammunition

[simonh]

I for one hate doing house-rules - for me a house-rule signifies either a percieved error in the rules or something I strongly disagree with. ...quote]

I know this is entirely a personal thing, so I'm not at all trying to be argumentative, just explain my own style.

I take completely the opposite view. I almost never run the same game twice with the same rules. Every time I set up a campaign, or even a one-off game, I very heavily customise the rules set I will use to the particular focus and style of game I want in that particular campaign, with those particular players and set of characters. I'm all about customising the rules and the setting to what I'm trying to achieve for that game.

The way I see it, the rules ina rulebook reflect the stylistic preferences of the author or the style of game it's aimed at creating. The chances that the particular goals of that author will allign with my needs at any given time is very low, IMHO, so I don't judge a game in this way.

For example I have a Traveller campaign I'm in the process of preparing for. I say 'Traveller' but actualy the character generation and game system will be based on Call of Cthulhu, but world generation and starship design will use modified Traveller rules and it's a home-grown setting. I'm using BRP partly because the Traveller careers aren't appropriate for the character backgrounds for this game, and because it's more familiar to more of the players than Traveller. If the players were all old Traveller hands and didn't know CoC I might have done things differently. Also even in this setting, for a game based on characters with more Travellery backgrounds I might run it using Traveller character generation and core game mechanics.

Simon Hibbs

 

[far-trader]

You do get at least one shot without extra tonnage.

I asked but still haven't seen your evidence for this. The way the rules I have read are written don't state such. So please state this properly; it is your assumption, opinion, preference, whatever... to permit one shot without extra tonnage. Or show where the rules spell it out as such.

As I've said before, as far as I can see the rules don't support ANY missile or sandcaster launches without additional tonnage allocated to AND carrying ammunition. I'm not saying it's right, I suspect it is just poorly/incompletely written rules.

I also don't see a statement that placing said ammunition aboard the ship means it has any automated loading included, meaning manual loading/reloading.

Which raises the issue of the standard Light Fighter in the core rules, with it's one person crew in a minimal cockpit. So what do they do? Pop the hatch, go EVA, load one round from the cargo space, hop back in the seat, fire it; repeat. No wonder it takes so long to conduct a battle

Logically there should be a Magazine component and rules regarding reloading if the intent is for ammunition to be carried/supplied separate from the weapon. Logically the weapon itself should have some inherent capacity even if it is only one round. One would hope the playtest would have found something this obvious and noted the lack and it would have been addressed. Apparently not.

 

[DFW]

You do get at least one shot without extra tonnage.

I asked but still haven't seen your evidence for this.

You've seen no evidence that you can have a missile in the tube to fire?

What???? So, you're saying there is no evidence that you can load a missile into the launcher so that it can be fired? okey-dokey.

 

[hdan]

You've seen no evidence that you can have a missile in the tube to fire?

What???? So, you're saying there is no evidence that you can load a missile into the launcher so that it can be fired? okey-dokey.

You assume a missile launcher is like a torpedo tube. Logically, I would agree, but the rules are silent on the topic. As far as we know, the missile launcher is just a robotic arm that moves a missile from the magazine out into space in one motion.

 

[far-trader]

You do get at least one shot without extra tonnage.

I asked but still haven't seen your evidence for this.

You've seen no evidence that you can have a missile in the tube to fire?

What???? So, you're saying there is no evidence that you can load a missile into the launcher so that it can be fired? okey-dokey.

Do you do this on purpose?

Read. My. Post.

Where. In. The. Rules. Does. It. State. That. There. Are. ANY. Ready. Rounds. In. A. Missile. Or. Sandcaster. Turret.

Yes, obviously you can fire the round once it's loaded into the launcher. It is the action of the loading that is in question. It is the lack of a statement of being able to CARRY any rounds ready to fire that is in question.

The way the rules are written, at least all I've read, and you've not posted any contrary, only persisted in assumptions, before you can fire the launcher you must load it from separately allocated storage. There is no stated capacity in the launcher itself for the ammunition. A rather glaring omission since other rules HAVE included such statements. It is written like it is a simple launch rail or tube and the ammunition must be run out on the rail or loaded into the tube, from some other storage, BEFORE being able to fire. I don't have to tell you why it's a bad idea to keep ammunition sitting routinely on a launch rail or in a launch tube.

The way it is written IF you don't allocate separate storage for ammunition you CAN NOT fire a launcher. Period. Because there is NO ammunition storage for it. I can't state it any clearer. And as noted I agree it's silly. There are sillier things though...

 

[DFW]

As far as we know, the missile launcher is just a robotic arm that moves a missile from the magazine out into space in one motion.

Except, THAT wouldn't require a turret. Just a door that opens and closes in the hull. Hence, nice try.

 

[FentonGib]

The way it is written IF you don't allocate separate storage for ammunition you CAN NOT fire a launcher. Period. Because there is NO ammunition storage for it. I can't state it any clearer. And as noted I agree it's silly. There are sillier things though...

In my interpretation you're correct on the logical assumption, but although it says ammunition is paid seperately, it doesn't to my knowledge specifically say it DOESN'T bring/hold one round. Like many many things in Traveller, they give you the basic info (classic is the races stating "far better senses than humans" but not saying what, or "lighter than the other version" but not giving any weights). So that could be interpreted that way if you want.

IMO it makes sense that a missile launcher (using real-life aircraft and vehicle missile launchers as examples, or games like battletech) will naturally have the weapons loaded in their bays/tubes but not primed, and then they're primed and self-launch. That's the usual basis for missile weapons imo.

 

[DFW]

Yes, obviously you can fire the round once it's loaded into the launcher.

So, you have one loaded in the launcher. That's ONE round ready to fire.
Pretty simple and what I stated.

 

[FentonGib]

Hell if it's like real-life vehicle launchers they may have all the missiles already loaded and fire each one once and that's it, they're gone, and then have to be manually reloaded (or in this case by mechanism that there's no tonnage given for and thus may not exist) - which of course explains the need for a whole ton of ammo. Or it could be like ship torps or in Star Trek where each missile is manually loaded into tubes and then fired when loaded - in which case one shot could be stored without extra weight.

I think the rules are very vague on that, and it can be up to the Referee to decide what they want.