Ship building questions related to weapons

[J. L. Brown]

For the plasma pulse cannon with base damage 2D, I’d add the barrels together first, like with any multi-mount weapon.

So, 2D + 2 for double turret, 2D + 4 for triple.

After that I’d add the auto effects, so a triple plasma pulse burst fire would be 2D + 4 + 4, and full auto fire would be four attack rolls at 2D + 4, just like with handheld weaponry. Imho.

It's great that you have a house rule that works for you. What would the power requirements be? How many separate targets could it hit?

Really, I wanted an official ruling from the guy who composed the rules in the first place, which is why I had replied to him. By my calculations a single 3x PPC turret firing full auto is prohibitively expensive -- it would be 30 power just for the basic weapons fire, and 120 for full auto fire. A single triple turret requires 120 power -- or 6 dTons (12 MCr) of dedicated TL15 Fusion plant, which is absolutely crazy. A ship needs to budget more power than any (non-PPC) Small or Medium bay weapon, per turret -- and that is without examining bay weapons. A Small Bay (1 hardpoint) uses 60 power for basic fire, and 360 power for full auto; a Medium Bay (1 hardpoint) uses 90 power for basic fire, and 720 for full auto; a Large Bay (5 hardpoints) uses 400 power for basic fire, and 3200 power for full auto. Considering that a 'Solar Pulse Generator' is described as 'using massive amounts of power' (2000 points of power) -- so much so that just keeping the power stored is dangerous -- then a weapon that uses more than one and a half times as much power seems a little silly.

Of course, I do not expect any clarification from Mongoose. They are busy shilling the next book, and any answer will likely be 'This is for the GM to decide for their own universe' or 'Maybe it will be fixed in the next haphazard revision of the book you have already bought three times -- be sure to buy the new one at full price!'

 

[AnotherDilbert]

It's great that you have a house rule that works for you.

It's just additive bonuses, so it does not matter in which order they are applied?

Autofire PPC triple turret:
Dam: 2D + 4 [autofire] + 4 [triple turret] = 2D + 8

Triple PPC turret autofire:
Dam: 2D + 4 [triple turret] + 4 [autofire] = 2D + 8

What would the power requirements be? How many separate targets could it hit?

A triple turret fire as one with more damage, so power as three weapons and targets as one attack.

As there is no separate auto fire rule for space combat weapons, they can attack several targets provided all targets are within 6 m, so in practice not (unless you house rule). But you do get four attack rolls with full auto.

 

[ProfGrizzlyJon]

I must be doing it wrong. Because of the longer duration of a starship combat round, I have been firing multiple times with the PPC or Burst Lasers

 

[Condottiere]

Consider it an abstraction.

Though you could consider a limited energy pool and the potential for overheating.

 

[Sigtrygg]

There is no thermodynamics in Traveller, no need to worry about waste heat ever.

 

[J. L. Brown]

By my calculations a single 3x PPC turret firing full auto is prohibitively expensive -- it would be 30 power just for the basic weapons fire, and 120 for full auto fire.

This is incorrect; sorry. I just spotted it. Page 68 of High Guard shows a turret-mounted TL 13 PPC is Auto 4, does 2D damage, and uses 10 power. An automatic weapon has three fire-modes -- single (one shot), burst (Auto# of shots), and full auto (3xAuto# of shots). That would give a single turret mounted PPC the following stats:
single shot (2D damage, 10 power);
burst fire (2D+4, 40 power); and
full automatic fire (4 attacks, each 2D+4 damage, 120 power)

A single triple-turret filled with three PPCs consumes 360 power (24 dTons of dedicated TL 12 Fusion plant) on full auto.
A Small Bay PPC uses 60, 360, and 1080 (72 dTons of dedicated powerplant) power.
A Medium PPC bay uses 90, 720, and 2160 (144 dTons -- more than the whole bay) power.
A Large PPC bay uses 400, 3200, and 9600 (640 dTons -- bleah) power.

Aside from the extremely high power costs, getting +1 damage to the attack (~per extra shot for burst fire or auto fire) and (per additional base damage dice of identical weapons firing) seems like a very poor trade off; especially with a High Yield or Very High Yield weapons. Or an Energy Weapon designed with Improved Beam Focus (Field Catalog, page 64). A clarification, or addressing this in an errata, would be nice.

 

[ProfGrizzlyJon]

This is incorrect; sorry. I just spotted it. Page 68 of High Guard shows a turret-mounted TL 13 PPC is Auto 4, does 2D damage, and uses 10 power. An automatic weapon has three fire-modes -- single (one shot), burst (Auto# of shots), and full auto (3xAuto# of shots). That would give a single turret mounted PPC the following stats:
single shot (2D damage, 10 power);
burst fire (2D+4, 40 power); and
full automatic fire (4 attacks, each 2D+4 damage, 120 power)

A single triple-turret filled with three PPCs consumes 360 power (24 dTons of dedicated TL 15 Fusion plant) on full auto.
A Small Bay PPC uses 60, 360, and 1080 (72 dTons of dedicated powerplant) power.
A Medium PPC bay uses 90, 720, and 2160 (144 dTons -- more than the whole bay) power.
A Large PPC bay uses 400, 3200, and 9600 (640 dTons -- bleah) power.

Aside from the extremely high power costs, getting +1 damage to the attack (~per extra shot for burst fire or auto fire) and (per additional base damage dice of identical weapons firing) seems like a very poor trade off; especially with a High Yield or Very High Yield weapons. Or an Energy Weapon designed with Improved Beam Focus (Field Catalog, page 64). A clarification, or addressing this in an errata, would be nice.

Not quite sure about those calculations.

A triple turret firing all equipped PPCs use 30 power (each one is 10 power)

Single (1 attack@10 power x triple= 30 power)
Burst (4 attacks@10 power x triple = 120 power)
Full auto (4 attacks@10 power x3 x triple= 360 power)

My question is the applicability of this rule:
These attacks can be made against separate targets so long as they are all within six metres of one another.

Is that six range bands?

 

[Condottiere]

My take on it it's a question of angle and range, which creates an optimum percentage of hitting diverse/grouped targets.

Missile swarms/salvos and fighter/smallcraft groups seem candidates, if only based on fragmentation rules.

If you extend this, any spacecrafts in really tight formations, and a percentage chance for those adjacent range to each other.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Single (1 attack@10 power x triple= 30 power)
Burst (4 attacks@10 power x triple = 120 power)
Full auto (4 attacks@10 power x3 x triple= 360 power)

There is no rule saying extra power usage, only ammo usage?
I have assumed the power usage includes auto fire, as a regular plasma gun uses less power to do more damage (but only once) [at least in HG17].

My question is the applicability of this rule:
These attacks can be made against separate targets so long as they are all within six metres of one another.

Is that six range bands?

No, 6 metres. There is no separate Auto trait for spacecraft weapons, AFAIK.
Season with house-rules as needed.

 

[J. L. Brown]

There is no rule saying extra power usage, only ammo usage?

That creates some very strange precedents for designing personal weapons in the Field Catalog.

I have assumed the power usage includes auto fire, as a regular plasma gun uses less power to do more damage (but only once) [at least in HG17].

I have done something similar, by assuming that the default use of a mounted weapon is to fire in 'Burst' mode -- so that is what the energy listed pays for. Full auto would then cost triple the energy, and allow multiple attack rolls. But both of these are house rules, and it would be good to have this cleared up in errata with an official rule which actually made sense.

 

[Condottiere]

I don't recall there being an automatic fire off switch in High Guard.

 

[J. L. Brown]

I don't recall there being an automatic fire off switch in High Guard.

Sure, you can house rule that ship-weapons always fire at full auto; but that is not how the rule for 'Automatic Fire' works. I just wish that Mongoose had seen fit to tell all of us what these weapons are supposed to actually do.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

That creates some very strange precedents for designing personal weapons in the Field Catalog.

There are no design system for auto energy weapons in FC?

I just wish that Mongoose had seen fit to tell all of us what these weapons are supposed to actually do.

Yes, that would be great...

 

[Condottiere]

Automatic fire as part of point defence.

 

[J. L. Brown]

There are no design system for auto energy weapons in FC?

Yes, there is. It begins on page 62, where it explains that 'energy weapons' are designed exactly like projectile weapons, except using special types of receivers as the base of the weapon. It says:

When creating an energy weapon the same three primary components are used as with firearms – receiver, barrel and stock. The barrel is a collimator or wave-guide rather than a hollow tube but its length affects the function of the weapon in the same way as a conventional firearm. Instead of ammunition, energy weapons require power. This can be stored in a powerpack or generated almost instantly by a disposable chemical cartridge.

The receiver options for burst-capable, fully-automatic, rapid-fire, and very-rapid-fire are on pages 31 & 32 and confer the 'AutoX' trait 'as per the Traveller Core Rulebook'. It is easy to read 'energy instead of ammunition' as saying that faster rates of fire consume more energy, but this is one of those things that Mongoose could have made more explicit. Also, it seems like the design rules do not allow the creation of new starship scale weapons.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Yes, there is. It begins on page 62, where it explains that 'energy weapons' are designed exactly like projectile weapons, except using special types of receivers as the base of the weapon. It says:

Not as far as I can see. We use the same basic component categories as firearms, but not exactly the same.

FC, p62:
When creating an energy weapon the same three primary components are used as with firearms – receiver, barrel and stock. The barrel is a collimator or wave-guide rather than a hollow tube but its length affects the function of the weapon in the same way as a conventional firearm. Instead of ammunition, energy weapons require power. This can be stored in a powerpack or generated almost instantly by a disposable chemical cartridge.

Sure, we use Receivers and Barrels, but they are not identical to firearm components.

FC, p64:
ENERGY WEAPON RECEIVERS
Energy weapons have four classes of receiver – Minimal, Small, Medium and Large. A Minimal receiver is ...

Some things are explicitly shared between the design sequences:

FC, p64:
The function of barrels and furniture is in most ways the same for energy weapons as conventional firearms. Most accessories, such as scopes and bipods, are also identical. Energy weapons do have some exclusive modifications, however.

The receiver options for burst-capable, fully-automatic, rapid-fire, and very-rapid-fire are on pages 31 & 32 and confer the 'AutoX' trait 'as per the Traveller Core Rulebook'. It is easy to read 'energy instead of ammunition' as saying that faster rates of fire consume more energy, but this is one of those things that Mongoose could have made more explicit.

I can't see that these options apply to the separate design sequence for energy weapons:

FC, pp31:
PROJECTILE WEAPON MECHANISMS ...
Single Shot: ...
Repeater: ...
Semi-Automatic: ...
Burst-Capable: ...
Fully-Automatic: A fully-automatic weapon can normally be set for semi-automatic fire, and many can also conduct burst fire. When in full-auto mode, the weapon will cycle as long as the trigger is held, burning through all available ammunition.

These modifiers only apply to projectile weapons, as far as I can see. Note that they are not receiver options, but a separate category.


None of the example energy weapons feature any Auto trait. If the Auto trait was only a modest price increase, without any weight or handling penalties, it should be the standard, not a rare exception.
E.g:

Only uses receiver features from the Energy Weapon chapter, even as it is somewhat kitted out. It does use barrel and stock features from the Projectile Weapons chapter, as expected.


I may very well be incorrect as I have only skimmed the rules, but I do not see what you see in the rules.

 

[WHULorigan]

There is no thermodynamics in Traveller, no need to worry about waste heat ever.

Of course there is - Waste Heat just gets used to power the Reactionless Drive.

 

[Sigtrygg]

You can't power things with waste heat - that is why it is waste heat...

 

[Condottiere]

Steam turbines.

 

[Geir]

Of course there is - Waste Heat just gets used to power the Reactionless Drive.

Yeah... I think you're onto something there... so... like... the M-Drive steals gravitational energy from a large mass and gives the big mass waste heat in return... through the...ah... Transmigramorphifier Exchange Circuit (TEC)... just like how a gravity assist gives a passing object energy by stealing some energy from the planet... except it's spread out across the whole body, so in this case the temperature increase is negligible across such a large mass.

Okay, but then I still have no method for frantically handwaving away the waste heat from the fusion reactor... but... since even small stars seem to be rather unstable (mega-flares), maybe the only way we can achieve stable fusion reactions is by a gravitational envelope surrounding the reactor that also feeds into the TEC... and I'm out of hands...

Hey, they took the radiators off the Discovery in 2001 A Space Odyssey because it 'didn't look cool (irony?) that way'. So it's the appearance of the craft that actually cools it.