Still confused by capital ship combat

apoc527 said:
Triple particle beams are very powerful weapons, but as others have pointed out, they are also incredibly expensive. However, when you add in IWD to the attack roll, it really starts to balance out. Triple particle beams are excellent until armor becomes high tech enough to reliably stop them (requires about 12-13 armor, as I believe was stated to get pretty reliable protection). Even before that though, you won't go wrong using bays and heavy bays because against low-mid levels of armor, you will reliably achieve 500% damage (which is the equivalent of rolling 5's on every die of damage). And really, does it matter if you merely completely blow the hell out of your enemy compared to utter annihilation? I somehow think the enemy crew will fail to appreciate the difference.

500% damage is equivalent to rolling 15 on each dice as to convert to non-barrage you times by 3. Although fine if you are staying in High Guard.

My view is the IWD makes the triple particle beam turret and missiles bays way too good, although there is certainly a view that the missiles are not good enough, and the particle beam is too good. I also other than a sentance indicating the rule take into account penetration, which I concede they do not, the IWD is a house rule not mentioned in the rulebook. Armour 12 will stop the "average" particle beam with 2 levels of tech advancement in Core Rulebook, and mostly in High Guard (0-10% through) - based on ColHut's average hit above). Missiles same story (but at armour 6).

Having said all that, IWD gives a very different flavour of game with a lot more explosions, a sort of "full thrust" version, so could be fun. Hopefully IWD will get cleared up in the LBB, as I suspect there are many using it.
 
Well a triple particle turret still has IWD of 3, not 9. It's conclusively established that turrets are treated as three separate weapons against armor.
 
apoc527 said:
Well a triple particle turret still has IWD of 3, not 9. It's conclusively established that turrets are treated as three separate weapons against armor.

Hi Apoc, I agree with you IWD of 3. So triple particle beam turret is
3-particle beam-range-3.

Using ColHut example I expanded above of 100 triple particle beam turrets aimed at armour:

Roll 2 IWD 0 damage No-IWD 0 damage. 100%
Roll 3 IWD 0 damage No-IWD 0 damage. 97%
Roll 4 IWD 0 damage No-IWD 0 damage. 92%
Roll 5 72 damage No-IWD 0 damage. 83%
Roll 6 IWD 180 damage (toast) No IWD 0 damage. 72%
Roll 7 IWD 360 damage (toast) No IWD 0 damage. 58%.
Roll 8 IWD 540 damage (toast) No IWD 72 damage. 42%
Roll 9 IWD 720 damage (toast) No IWD 180 damage (toast). 28%

72% chance of destroying 10,000 tons is too high (compared to 28% without IWD) Not even going to look at the missiles with +12/+24 IWD. Under Core Rules each particle beam has a 26% chance of doing 1 hit (total of 13 on 3 dice), so some damage is clearly going to be done. My probability skills are not good enough to compare the high yield benefit of this, but it clearly increases the damage.

Triple particle beam lasers are pretty scary in Core Rulebook as well.
 
The missile batteries are probably NOT IWD--if you read their barrage damage, it says "24 missiles" NOT "24." so I think there's a key difference.

As for the particle beam turrets, I'm not so sure if that's wrong. I forget what armor values were used in the earlier example, but IWD 3 is pretty small against decent armor. 12+ armor is HUGE--that equates to a -12 DM on the barrage damage table.
 
At 16MCr a turret (double upgrade), the triple particle beam is expensive. but High Guard certainly exagerates its effectiveness (even without IWF).

Expensive sure, but even 100 of them are only half the cost for a spinal mount, they compare favourably with beam lasers on a cost basis, and though a 1/4 as efficient as pulse lasers, because of the way modifiers work, the short range and automatic -2 make them the automatic machine pistol of HG rather than your MG 42. Spinal weapons have very low bang per buck (less then .1).

A tl 15, pp6, a 10000 ton ship can have 60 particle bays occupying 6000 tons doing 9d6 and 40 MCR each. - a paltry 540 barrage at a cost of 450 with upgrades - so maybe better value for money but using 60 times the disp.

When is the next tournament :)





:oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :D :D
 
apoc527 said:
The missile batteries are probably NOT IWD--if you read their barrage damage, it says "24 missiles" NOT "24." so I think there's a key difference.

As for the particle beam turrets, I'm not so sure if that's wrong. I forget what armor values were used in the earlier example, but IWD 3 is pretty small against decent armor. 12+ armor is HUGE--that equates to a -12 DM on the barrage damage table.

Isn't that -9?

In the first paragraph of "Barrages and Defences" on page 74 it reads "Add up all the protection offered by the defences, then subtract it from the individual weapon damage score to determine the final DM."


So with no other factors, so with IWD of three for a particle turret, and 1n armour of 12... we get 3-12 = -9

Of course that is taken from the barrage attack roll (hopefully there will be some positive modifiers)

..... yes... I am picking nits....


Regards

Dracous
 
No you are quite right. I hadn't done the math yet. The other way to use IWD is just to add it to the attack roll. It amounts to the same thing. But you did quote the actual sentence which, IMO, makes the case for applying IWD in this fashion.

And that's why heavy weapons are so good too. It's a net -9 DM vs particle beam turrets, but only a -3 vs heavy particle bays.
 
Just looked at my maths post above, quite clearly my probability and maths skills are as rubbish as I remember.

180 points is not enough to toast a 10,000 ton cruiser - it needs 264 points.

10000 tons = 200 hull AND 200 structure. Across 3 sections this is 66 points of each per section. As triple particle beam barrage will hit 2 sections you need to generate a hot of 66x2 to get through the hull and 66x2 to get through the structure.

So toast level is Roll of 7+ (58%) with IWD 3 and 10+ without. Even with the maths error it is still too high in my honest opinion. Although the damage was not as high as I calculated, I am still opposed to IWD for the following 3 reasons.


1) The probability of damage as caused by the Core Rulebook is better modelled without IWD. If you roll 100 triple particle beam, it is very unlikely to destroy 10,000 ton ship.
2) No-where in the rules is IWD mentioned.
3) The firepower of a ship is enough to kill its own tonnage is not a fun game, line the ships up and roll 7+ to kill a baddy - boring. 7+ = death, when criticals start at net 8+ seems a bit silly to me as well.

In as tournament, I would expect most ships to have armour=TL. Armour 12 is 15% of volume and +60% cost of hull - fairly cheap as it stops just about any turret mounted weapon under Core Rulebook. Given the paper, scissor, rock aspect of the game you would be mad not to, it is about balance.

A ship with lower armour and more guns is a sort of Strike Cruiser (in SFB/FC terms) a perfectly acceptable proposition for a fleet - as long as it kills the enemy quicker than it dies.
 
I have to respectfully disagree with your point #2 there.

Dracous quoted HG in his post right before mine and pointed out the section where HG attempts to explain how to use IWD. The book doesn't say add it, it says subtract defense DMs from IWD to get final attack DM, which is mathematically the same thing. I think it's necessary to differentiate the weapons, otherwise all bay weapons suck.

But here's a completely different consideration that isn't clearly covered in HG. The barrage rules say to use DMs for fire control as per normal ship combat. The way I read that is that a capship doesn't get fire control on ALL of its attacks. It can have the computer take over control based on the Rating of the FC program or grant a bonus on AN attack equal to the rating or a bonus on several attacks up to the rating (so I could get five attacks at +1 DM or one at +3 and two at +1 etc).

If that's true than suddenly capship barrages are a lot less broken for secondary batteries. Even if we assume that spinal mounts are a special case and always get the full FC bonus, most capships are not going to use their full FC bonus on secondary batteries but rather the bays that have a better chance of causing real harm.

So maybe things aren't broken at all as long as the 600 p-beam turrets don't also get +5 DM from fire control.
 
One other thing I'm doing (IMTU, for those that are concerned about house rules and settings), is that I'm redefining the turret weapons.

First, turret weapons take up either 1, 2, or 3 slots. Lasers, sandcasters, and missile racks take up one slot each. Particle beams take up three slots (so now you can ONLY have single mounted particle beams in turrets). Finally, I created several new types of turret weapon: heavy beam and heavy pulse lasers both take up 3 slots each, and turret fusion and turret plasma guns take up 2 slots each.

Taking my inspiration from the Babylon 5 Traveller books, GURPS Traveller: Starships, and from CSC, I created the following modifications to all turret weapons (in case you can't tell, I'm so new to Traveller that nothing is a sacred cow to me):

1. Pulse lasers are back to 1d6, are Medium ranged, and only have a -1 DM to hit. I felt that pulse lasers should be economy priced defensive weapons, and they were originally that in Core Book, but HG went and made them the best offensive weapons. An accurate pulse laser (available TL9 unless I'm mistaken, is a good choice for many civilian ships).

2. Beam lasers are back to 2d6, are boosted to Long range, and represent a solid, military-style weapon. Corsairs use them because they are intimidating as heck. Mercenary cruisers use them because they are effective. A Free Trader with a beam laser is a serious combatant.

3. The heavy pulse laser deals 1d6+3 damage, costs 1.5 MCr and also has a -1 DM to hit. It uses three turret slots. It's optimum range is also Medium. The heavy beam laser does 2d6+3 damage, costs 2 MCr and is still Long ranged. These are definitely military weapons, especially the heavy beam laser.

4. The turret particle beam takes the aforementioned 3 slots, has its range reduced to Medium, and is otherwise the same. All the physics data I could find suggests that particle beams are NOT long-ranged weapons, even in space and using neutral p-beams (which is a requirement, obviously). They ARE powerful weapons, though, so I retained the 3d6+crew hit damage. They should also have a deleterious effect on unhardened (non-fib) electronics.

5. The sandcaster and missile rack are unchanged.

6. A turret plasma gun deals 2d6, suffers from a -2 DM to hit, but has the AP quality and therefore ignores 2 points of armor. It's a Short ranged weapon taking up 2 weapon slots.

7. A turret fusion gun deals 3d6+crew hit, suffers from the same -2 DM, but also has the AP quality, ignoring 3 points of armor. It is also short ranged and uses two weapon slots.

(Though I haven't statted them out, barbette plasma and fusion guns would be available with +1d6 damage (and +1 AP), would still be Short ranged, and still have a -2 DM to hit.)

8. Fusion bays (both 50 and 100 dton) have the AP quality. This means that they ignore 5 and 8 points of armor respectively. When using the Barrage rules, simply reduce effective armor by this amount. The bays have an optimum range of Medium, but lose their AP quality beyond Medium range. If damage is reduced by nuclear dampers, the AP quality suffers proportionally.

9. Standard 50 dton particle bays have their range reduced to Medium.

10. I modified railguns to make them not so unusual. The 50 ton bay does 4d6 and has the same autofire rating, and the 100 dton version does 5d6. All versions have AP quality, but are Short ranged. However, they may still make attacks out to Long range at a -6 DM.

11. I've also created laser bays (50 and 100 dton versions), and a set of antimatter weapons that begin at TL 18. The beam laser bays have an optimum range of V. Long, making them the longest ranged, non-missile weapons in my game.

12. And finally, I have a set of rules for 500 and 1000 dton megabays. Maybe I'll post those later.

The beauty of the designs in the books is that they can easily be modified to take advantage of these new weapon types and be equally disadvantaged by the new rules for particle beams. Most capships will just have cheaper particle batteries since they'll be limited to single-mounted particle beams (which require a triple turret to mount). Some smaller ships may elect to mount heavy lasers for the extra hitting power, and others may want to mount the short-ranged, anti-fighter plasma or fusion guns. It also makes a lot of sense to arm fighters with fixed mount fusion guns.
 
No sacred cows here in MTU!

I like your changes in principle.

Have you tested them in combat to see if they are balanced?

Treating the Pulse Laser as a defensive (and thus civilian grade) weapon is a good idea.

One House rule that I used for a while was to make ALL turrets single turrets. This significantly reduced the effectiveness of smaller ships but with the HG rules it didn't make sense any more. Combining my 1 weapon per turret with your revised damage for lasers might still work.

Really though, ship combat is pretty rare in my games, it is usually the threat of combat that is enough. Most passenger liners aren't going to risk killing their passengers (and the resulting lawsuits by relatives). Shippers and insurance companies tend not to want to pay out to a captain that tried to fight his way out of a pirate raid.
YMMV.
 
But here's a completely different consideration that isn't clearly covered in HG. The barrage rules say to use DMs for fire control as per normal ship combat. The way I read that is that a capship doesn't get fire control on ALL of its attacks. It can have the computer take over control based on the Rating of the FC program or grant a bonus on AN attack equal to the rating or a bonus on several attacks up to the rating (so I could get five attacks at +1 DM or one at +3 and two at +1 etc).

Nice try - no banana though :)

Capital ship super Computers (and high tech ones could run several FC programs at the same time with their ratings), are 10 a penny anyway, crew are cheap, and computers are only needed per attack so I think that you always get the FC values of your program for each barrage attack.

I think the actual problem here is the absence of proper energy consumption rules per TNE or even CT. The handwave in the book (HG p.48 ) only applies to Bay sized weapons and not to capital ships (it says) but then (HG p.61) says to use them anyway!-
The number of particle beams is limited as per the expanded spacecraft rules.
Either way all you need is a PP rating more than 4 to have all your turrets fitted with particle beams.

regards
 
I have not had the opportunity to test these ideas. Most of them are probably sound enough, but I'm not sure about the heavy lasers. I like the concept, but I may need to work on the execution. A heavy turret weapon is just one step away from a barbette, so I need to be careful.

I think that heavy pulse lasers are probably pointless--only good for low TL military ships. Heavy beam lasers are good though. I'm considering giving them +1 DM to hit or increasing the range to V. Long. The other option would be to put normal pulse lasers back to Short, normal beam lasers back to Medium, and keep the above listed ranges for the heavy versions of both. That way, you get +3 damage and a longer range.
 
Back
Top