Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
This might actually be a lot more complex than we imagined.
The sand might need to be manufactured at a higher technological level.
Space Combat - Did I miss something?
- Thread starter Galen
- Start date
This might actually be a lot more complex than we imagined.
The sand might need to be manufactured at a higher technological level.
AnotherDilbert
Emperor Mongoose
You can fire them together, or just the one, disregarding the other.
Sandcasters, presuming one canister per caster, not per reaction: (good gunner)
1: D6 + Effect ≈ 6 for one canister, 6 pts/canister, 120 pts per reload
2: D6 + Effect + 1 ≈ 7, for two canisters, 3¹⁄₂ pts per canister, 70 pts per reload
3: D6 + Effect + 2 ≈ 8, for three canister, 2²⁄₃ pts per canister, 53 pts per reload
Better use of available reactions and ammo is to only use a single caster hence canister.
Or you sidestep the issue by using RAW and only one canister per reaction, so the additional weapons add more damage prevention per reaction and per reload.
AnotherDilbert
Emperor Mongoose
LBB2, obviously...
I disagree.
I would say that the intent is that only one weapon or set of weapons can be fired out of a turret in one round. You cannot fire one Sandcaster, then fire the second, then the third if you have three.
Again, there is a lot of Grey in the rules, so you do you. It's not a sim.
DOUBLE AND TRIPLE TURRETS
Some spacecraft are fitted with double or triple turrets, which allow two or three weapons to be mounted in the same turret. If these weapons are different (a pulse laser, missile rack and sandcaster in the same triple turret, for example), then only one type may be used in a single combat round.
However, if two or more weapons are of the same type, they may be fired together. One attack roll is made for all weapons being fired, but each additional weapon adds +1 per damage dice to the final damage total. For example, if a triple turret with three pulse lasers is fired, it will only make one attack roll but will deal 2D+4 damage (two additional pulse lasers each adding +1 per damage dice). Sandcasters can also be linked in this way, granting +1 to the damage negated by laser attacks for each additional sandcaster beyond the first. Missiles are handled differently when in double or triple turrets, so do not get the bonus above. See page 172 for missile combat.
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
If you could convert the sand canister into a mortar shell, you could install a row of support mortars, and have them fire in the direction of the laser fire.
Pratty sure that is how Mark Miller described it to a buddy of mine at a con.
Last edited:
collins355
Emperor Mongoose
I've looked and looked and can't find this anywhere in my CT collection - not in CT '77, not in CT '80, not in Starter Traveller, not in the Traveller Book, not in Mayday. Maybe someone with better eyes can point it out to me.
In Mayday you're told to use a blank counter placed on the launching vessel to represent Sand. The counter stays with the vessel unless and until the vessel changes its vector through subsequent thrusting.
Sigtrygg
Emperor Mongoose
From CT Striker
6. Sandcasters: Sandcasters may be used as a sort of giant shotgun. They attack all targets within their danger space, which is 4 cm (40m) wide at effective range, 8 cm (80m) at long range, and 12 cm (120m) at extreme range. Effective range in a standard atmosphere is 50 cm (500m) with a penetration of 20 and an autofire DM of +8. Long range is 100 cm (1,000m)with a penetration of 10 and an autofire DM of +6. Extreme range is 200 cm (2,000m) with a penetration of 5 and an autofire DM of +4.
Note that this is for planet side use - or a potential repel boarders scenario... the scale is 1cm is 10m so I will add that in parentheses
6. Sandcasters: Sandcasters may be used as a sort of giant shotgun. They attack all targets within their danger space, which is 4 cm (40m) wide at effective range, 8 cm (80m) at long range, and 12 cm (120m) at extreme range. Effective range in a standard atmosphere is 50 cm (500m) with a penetration of 20 and an autofire DM of +8. Long range is 100 cm (1,000m)with a penetration of 10 and an autofire DM of +6. Extreme range is 200 cm (2,000m) with a penetration of 5 and an autofire DM of +4.
Note that this is for planet side use - or a potential repel boarders scenario... the scale is 1cm is 10m so I will add that in parentheses
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
A sandcutter canister may be targeted against an enemy ship within Adjacent or Close range and a successful attack halves the protection given by any sand canisters the enemy uses that round.
The range for the weapon is increased by one band, to a maximum of Very Long. For example, a Long Range beam laser will change from Medium to Long range.
Long Range requires two Advantages and may only be applied once.
The range for the weapon is increased by one band, to a maximum of Very Long. For example, a Long Range beam laser will change from Medium to Long range.
Long Range requires two Advantages and may only be applied once.
AnotherDilbert
Emperor Mongoose
Yes, and that is what I'm discussing.
A single turret gives D6 + Effect additional armour.
A double turret gives D6 + Effect + 1 additional armour, very little extra oompf, right?
Presuming one canister per caster, not per reaction: (good gunner)
With a single sandcaster turret:
D6 + Effect ≈ 6 for one canister, 6 pts/canister, 120 pts per reload
With a double sandcaster turret:
D6 + Effect + 1 ≈ 7, for two canisters, 3¹⁄₂ pts per canister, 70 pts per reload
With a triple sandcaster turret:
D6 + Effect + 2 ≈ 8, for three canisters, 2²⁄₃ pts per canister, 53 pts per reload
You get very little extra damage prevention per shot with more sandcasters in the turret, and much less per reload.
You really only want single sand turrets...
With RAW, one canister per reaction:
With a single sandcaster turret:
D6 + Effect ≈ 6 for one canister, 6 pts/canister, 120 pts per reload
With a double sandcaster turret:
D6 + Effect + 1 ≈ 7, for one canister, 7 pts per canister, 140 pts per reload
With a triple sandcaster turret:
D6 + Effect + 2 ≈ 8, for one canister, 8 pts per canister, 160 pts per reload
You get very little extra damage prevention per shot with more sandcasters in the turret, and a bit more per reload.
You really only want triple sand turrets...
Do you want a system that makes single sand turrets superior to triple sand turrets?
Last edited:
I see your argument now. Thanks.
LBB 77 and Snapshot it was just place a cloud on the table. Nothing would have changed in Classic, they never did revise those rules aside from the range band simplification in LBB 81 and High Guard.
I'll check MegaTraveller. It will be either there or TNE.
As far as muzzle velocity goes... sure, but too high and it's useless. I think we can assume sand is designed to deploy optimally. Whatever that might actually mean in the context of made up far future space combat.
I'll check MegaTraveller. It will be either there or TNE.
As far as muzzle velocity goes... sure, but too high and it's useless. I think we can assume sand is designed to deploy optimally. Whatever that might actually mean in the context of made up far future space combat.
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
Small crystals drifting at sublight speeds probably don't react too favourably with missile chassis accelerating towards them.
J. L. Brown
Emperor Mongoose
After one six-minute turn, a 'standard' (thrust 10) missile or torpedo is moving at ~12960 km per hour. Running into anything will be pretty dramatic.
I imagine Traveller missiles are maneuvering to avoid sand clouds, which by definition are pretty easy to detect with laser based sensors.
Realistically, space missiles have to decelerate from peak velocity in order to intercept their target, in any case. If they were actually impacting at those speeds we would not be bothering to roll damage.
There's also the point that if it was travelling fast enough that a few grains of sand were enough to destroy the missile, the debris and plasma from that impact is heading for the ship anyway and will impact THAT within a fraction of a second.
Realistically, space missiles have to decelerate from peak velocity in order to intercept their target, in any case. If they were actually impacting at those speeds we would not be bothering to roll damage.
There's also the point that if it was travelling fast enough that a few grains of sand were enough to destroy the missile, the debris and plasma from that impact is heading for the ship anyway and will impact THAT within a fraction of a second.
MonsterX
Emperor Mongoose
reducing missile damage to the target does not seem like a valid reason for decelerating one's missiles before impact, but maybe this is not what you mean in the statement?
Higher impact velocities have a complex relationship to damage, though, and the desired velocity could well be different for different projectile types and the different desired effects. Ideally, in most cases you'd want to penetrate the armour and explode inside the target. But if the projectile is travelling 100kps relative to the target maybe it is better to NOT penetrate the armour, but maybe explode into biggish fragments just before impact and blow dozens of giant holes in the side of the target - maybe regardless of armour if the impactor is going quickly enough. An AP missile might just end up passing straight through the target and out the other side without detonating, so they probably need special design and fusing.
I don't remember the exact numbers right now, but I did a little back of the napkin math once, and it looked like impacts from missiles at interplanetary speeds - so 100s of kps - would not quite reach the level of even small nuclear weapon energy release. Nukes have high damage in Traveller ship combat, but not extreme. I don't think we need to assume missiles are decelerating generally, though there might be cases where their interception algorithm makes them do that to get the best hit chance.
Last edited:
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
Depends on what the rulebook came up with damage caused by by the impact.
You have to wonder what was in the warhead of the ortillery missile.
If you don't have enough armour plating, you turn tail, and see if you can outrun the missile, which has a fifty percent chance of getting lost after five rounds, and runs out of fuel after ten.
You have to wonder what was in the warhead of the ortillery missile.
If you don't have enough armour plating, you turn tail, and see if you can outrun the missile, which has a fifty percent chance of getting lost after five rounds, and runs out of fuel after ten.
J. L. Brown
Emperor Mongoose
While we are on the topic of missile damage -- has anyone noticed how completely weird and unclear the rules for Nuclear Dampers are?
So vs 'a fusion weapon or salvo of nuclear warheads (whether they are on missiles or torpedoes)' the rule is to reduce damage and remove the radiation trait per Nuclear Damper. No other 'Radiation' trait weapons (particle beams, anti-matter, etc) are called out, although they probably ought to be.
THEN there is a different set of rules for dealing with 'Destructive Weapons' -- apparently all types of 'Destructive' trait weapons, regardless of how they work or have anything to do with whether they use 'Strong Nuclear Force' effects to cause damage. But wait! ALL 'Nuclear Missiles' and 'Nuclear Torpedoes' are 'Destructive', and (in ship-to-ship combat below TL-20) are the ONLY 'Destructive' warheads; so this second rule is obviously how they ought to be handled -- except they are specifically called out in the first part of the rule.
What the actual heck.
Don't even get me started on 'Orbital Strike Missile Bays', which use a unique & not-listed-elsewhere type of missile whose damage type and amount is ignored by the 'Orbital Strike Missile Bay' rules.
So vs 'a fusion weapon or salvo of nuclear warheads (whether they are on missiles or torpedoes)' the rule is to reduce damage and remove the radiation trait per Nuclear Damper. No other 'Radiation' trait weapons (particle beams, anti-matter, etc) are called out, although they probably ought to be.
THEN there is a different set of rules for dealing with 'Destructive Weapons' -- apparently all types of 'Destructive' trait weapons, regardless of how they work or have anything to do with whether they use 'Strong Nuclear Force' effects to cause damage. But wait! ALL 'Nuclear Missiles' and 'Nuclear Torpedoes' are 'Destructive', and (in ship-to-ship combat below TL-20) are the ONLY 'Destructive' warheads; so this second rule is obviously how they ought to be handled -- except they are specifically called out in the first part of the rule.
What the actual heck.
Don't even get me started on 'Orbital Strike Missile Bays', which use a unique & not-listed-elsewhere type of missile whose damage type and amount is ignored by the 'Orbital Strike Missile Bay' rules.
Last edited:
AnotherDilbert
Emperor Mongoose
No, they only work against weapons operating by nuclear fission or fusion. They don't remove existing radiation such as particle beams.
No, it's a subsection, it's about Destructive fusion guns and nukes.
For a non-destructive (less than 1DD) fusion or nuke attack, one successfully used damper unit removes the Radiation trait and 2D × Effect damage.
For a Destructive (1DD+) fusion or nuke attack, five successfully used damper units (by one gunner action) remove the Radiation trait and 1DD × Effect damage.
They are used with the Angle Screen reaction. The real miracle is that they prevent damage that would have been inflicted after to hit, defences, and armour...
J. L. Brown
Emperor Mongoose
The radiation effect from a particle beam is the result of nuclear decay effects. And dampers are specifically referred to in several cases as being used to clean up radiation and radioactive material after the fact.
Please provide an example of a non-Destructive 'Nuclear Warhead' for ship to ship combat.
And also please explain how 'Nuclear Missiles' (1DD damage, High Guard Update, p 36) and 'Nuclear Torpedoes' (2DD damage, High Guard Update, p 39) -- both of which are mentioned explicitly in the first section -- are NOT treated as 'Destructive' weapons.
