havercake lad
Banded Mongoose
Are there any rules or guidelines on working out a spaceship's armour if the ship is attacked whilst on ground etc by demolition charges or infantry heavy weapons etc ?
Traveller : Stellar Ship Armour
- Thread starter havercake lad
- Start date
R Arceneaux
Mongoose
Disclaimer: Always first read the core rule book on any given problem as it is presented word for word/adding nothing subtracting nothing. Double check to see what it says....
The question revolves around the question can a ship that can be hit witn a rocket or other physical attack weaqponry in space also be hit by that same rocket while it is landed on a planet?
Common Sense...
IF the ship can be hit by a rocket in space (or at least not forbidden to be hit) per the core rules then it shuld also be able to be hit by that same rocket while tge ship has landed.
Disclaimer...
Unless otherwise stated in the official rule book of course....
The question revolves around the question can a ship that can be hit witn a rocket or other physical attack weaqponry in space also be hit by that same rocket while it is landed on a planet?
Common Sense...
IF the ship can be hit by a rocket in space (or at least not forbidden to be hit) per the core rules then it shuld also be able to be hit by that same rocket while tge ship has landed.
Disclaimer...
Unless otherwise stated in the official rule book of course....
havercake lad
Banded Mongoose
But the armour points are worked out differently for stellar vessels as compared to rules for terrestial based vehicles etc.
R Arceneaux
Mongoose
Riddle me this young bat boy lad....
IF a star ship hmmmm such as the Enterprise (Star Trek TOS) could land safely on a planet and then take off, does the composition of the shielding change just because it landed on a rock in space/planet?
And once again using the shuttle from the series Star Trek TNG as an example. If shuttle from sat the TNG series has one value while traveling in space why would that value become greater or less just because it lands on a planet? Did they suddenly put up a new shield?????
The only possible exception would be that you could not put up the shielding at all due to environmental factors of the planet: extreme ionization of the planet might possiblyt cancel out the shield field making it impossible to raise the shield as well. OR if the shield is that of simple hardend metal for example then using the laws of real world steel properties for example temperature could make the metal stronger or weaker due to sheer temperature factors.
Either way if you can hit something in space with a physical object such as a missile as opposed to a force weapon such as a phaser then you should and ought to be able to hit a ship while landed on a target--possibley harder with more damage if the shielding is electromagnetic in nature and the envorinment does not allow you to bring it up to mitigate damage from the strike.
IF a star ship hmmmm such as the Enterprise (Star Trek TOS) could land safely on a planet and then take off, does the composition of the shielding change just because it landed on a rock in space/planet?
And once again using the shuttle from the series Star Trek TNG as an example. If shuttle from sat the TNG series has one value while traveling in space why would that value become greater or less just because it lands on a planet? Did they suddenly put up a new shield?????
The only possible exception would be that you could not put up the shielding at all due to environmental factors of the planet: extreme ionization of the planet might possiblyt cancel out the shield field making it impossible to raise the shield as well. OR if the shield is that of simple hardend metal for example then using the laws of real world steel properties for example temperature could make the metal stronger or weaker due to sheer temperature factors.
Either way if you can hit something in space with a physical object such as a missile as opposed to a force weapon such as a phaser then you should and ought to be able to hit a ship while landed on a target--possibley harder with more damage if the shielding is electromagnetic in nature and the envorinment does not allow you to bring it up to mitigate damage from the strike.
R Arceneaux
Mongoose
Forgot to inclued in my post....
A ship of any kind sitting or standing completely still in space has no movement factor to reduce its target vunerablility shield or no shield. A sitting duck should by all common sense be 10 times easier to hit compared to one that can manuver at full speed.
If the rocket can hit a moving target then using that same rocket is should be far far easier to hit that same target when it is parked on a planet not moving.
A ship of any kind sitting or standing completely still in space has no movement factor to reduce its target vunerablility shield or no shield. A sitting duck should by all common sense be 10 times easier to hit compared to one that can manuver at full speed.
If the rocket can hit a moving target then using that same rocket is should be far far easier to hit that same target when it is parked on a planet not moving.
havercake lad
Banded Mongoose
I,m trying to ask what armour value ( comparable to ground vehicles) something like a shuttle or heavy freighter has if in dock etc and is targeted by a shoulder arm or rocket launcher.
R Arceneaux
Mongoose
should be exactly the same as armor values as armor values in space provided the type of armor is stated as useless in the core rules.
havercake lad
Banded Mongoose
But pertinant arnmour values for star ships exposed to infantry weapons etc dont exist. Ground cars and air rafts have 6pts of armour for this purpose.
The 'stellar' rating of shuttles, launchs, freighters is 0pts. Even a police cutter has only 4pts, less than ground vehicles above and equal to a basic flak jacket.
I noticed that 'Death Station ' included an armour point total for bulkheads etc..I just wondered if an article exists anywhere. Otherwise a kid with a toy catapult and ball bearings could turn a diocked stellar craft into Swiss cheese.
The 'stellar' rating of shuttles, launchs, freighters is 0pts. Even a police cutter has only 4pts, less than ground vehicles above and equal to a basic flak jacket.
I noticed that 'Death Station ' included an armour point total for bulkheads etc..I just wondered if an article exists anywhere. Otherwise a kid with a toy catapult and ball bearings could turn a diocked stellar craft into Swiss cheese.
R Arceneaux
Mongoose
That does not make sense. Armor/shielding is armor/shielding and does not change its charistics just because the armor/shielding just happens to be in atmo as opposed to the vacume of space.
The only logical possible exception to this common sense is: IF the shielding is electromatnetic (kind of like the bubble shield around the Enterprise in Star Trek) in nature and one could not turn it on for whatever reason.
The only logical possible exception to this common sense is: IF the shielding is electromatnetic (kind of like the bubble shield around the Enterprise in Star Trek) in nature and one could not turn it on for whatever reason.
AndrewW
Emperor Mongoose
R Arceneaux said:
Since when does everything make sense? That said to handle the rigors of space travel the hull does need to be stronger then that of a regular vehicle. Although one could have used a higher armour value instead, this is the way they did it. Been a bit of a discussion over in the Traveller forum about it.
R Arceneaux
Mongoose
Please reference the original question to which my reply was directed....
"Are there any rules or guidelines on working out a spaceship's armour if the ship is attacked whilst on ground etc by demolition charges or infantry heavy weapons etc ?"
The original question concerned damages that may be caused and armor value adjustments if any.
"Are there any rules or guidelines on working out a spaceship's armour if the ship is attacked whilst on ground etc by demolition charges or infantry heavy weapons etc ?"
The original question concerned damages that may be caused and armor value adjustments if any.
havercake lad
Banded Mongoose
[/quote]
Thanks. Missed this rule, where was it located ?
lastbesthope
Mongoose
R Arceneaux said:
Depends entirely on the guidance feedback loop in the rocket's homing logic, but generally yes, unless it's been tuned to handle only moving targets.
LBH
havercake lad
Banded Mongoose
Missed that , thanks for response.AndrewW said:
R Arceneaux
Mongoose
To requote from a previous post....
"Gaining a +4DM bonus to hit anything on the starship-scale, ground
force weaponry must divide its damage by 50 before comparing it
to a starship-scale target’s armour."
Given that the above is in fact true as stated, it does not make any sense....
Other than a small shuttle type vessel the above stated rule would have you believe that standing not too far from a very large space ship using say either a hand grenade or an RPG or even bullets from an assault rifle that one could miss hitting such a big ship when one is aiming to just hit the ship and not at any specific point (which I agree with should have some kind of penalty to hit). WHY would any kind of bonus to hit even be required in the first place. In basic D D Terms its a case of just dont roll a 1 on a d20 die (cosmic failure). It should be a virtual auto hit almost all the time.
The second thing that is stupid about the rule is WHY divide damage 50 damage just because what you are shooting at is big or is a space craft. IF this were the case then any time you shot at or hit anything with such a weapon you should and ought to 50 that damage as well. EQUAL application of principle should be the rule in any kind of fairly based rule application. In other words what is good for the goose is sauce for the gander.
And please do not take it that I am targeting only Traveler for rules that make absolutely no sense. Stupid rules exist in every RPG I have ever played. Some have fewer but they all have some rule or rules that makes absolutely no sense. The game with the fewest such rules twisting was Bab 5 that used the laws of physics as a basis for a lot of their rules. STILL even Bab 5 had a dumb rule or two--one such one being the damage done by energy weaponry (any kind of a hit to the main body torso should have been instant death of the character).
"Gaining a +4DM bonus to hit anything on the starship-scale, ground
force weaponry must divide its damage by 50 before comparing it
to a starship-scale target’s armour."
Given that the above is in fact true as stated, it does not make any sense....
Other than a small shuttle type vessel the above stated rule would have you believe that standing not too far from a very large space ship using say either a hand grenade or an RPG or even bullets from an assault rifle that one could miss hitting such a big ship when one is aiming to just hit the ship and not at any specific point (which I agree with should have some kind of penalty to hit). WHY would any kind of bonus to hit even be required in the first place. In basic D D Terms its a case of just dont roll a 1 on a d20 die (cosmic failure). It should be a virtual auto hit almost all the time.
The second thing that is stupid about the rule is WHY divide damage 50 damage just because what you are shooting at is big or is a space craft. IF this were the case then any time you shot at or hit anything with such a weapon you should and ought to 50 that damage as well. EQUAL application of principle should be the rule in any kind of fairly based rule application. In other words what is good for the goose is sauce for the gander.
And please do not take it that I am targeting only Traveler for rules that make absolutely no sense. Stupid rules exist in every RPG I have ever played. Some have fewer but they all have some rule or rules that makes absolutely no sense. The game with the fewest such rules twisting was Bab 5 that used the laws of physics as a basis for a lot of their rules. STILL even Bab 5 had a dumb rule or two--one such one being the damage done by energy weaponry (any kind of a hit to the main body torso should have been instant death of the character).
Nathan Brazil
Banded Mongoose
R Arceneaux said:
I hope that one of the official people can provide a more official sounding answer. Traveller in its various guises makes a distinction between hitting something in combat (by using the combat roll) as opposed to actually damaging something that has been hit. The "divide by 50" rule is put in place to specifically address that personnel weapons are relatively ineffective against starships due to starship hull or armor being very tough. So if you have any ranged weapon skill at all, you can hit the broadside of a barn, er, starship. But you won't be doing much damage to it, not by yourself anyways. The Mercenary book provides the example of how combined arms fire could damage a starship. Takes a lot of effort in a single combat round.
Similar threads
