Traveller Weapon Playtest Comments

[MongooseMatt]

We are currently looking at some revisions to the way shooting weapons work in Traveller, and would like you to have a look through the new rules and make comment on the changes we have made. Specifically, we are looking for comments on;

· Do the new Armour Piercing and Destructive rules work?
· Are there any weapons that don’t have AP or Destructive on them and should (bear in mind high damage weapons will punch through a lot of armour without needing either)?
· Are there some weapons with AP or Destructive that should not have them or need them tweaked?
· Do the new skill specialities make sense, and have they been assigned to the right weapons?
· We have made a few tweaks already to some weapon stats – is there anything else that we should be looking at modifying or changing for any weapon listed here?

The new rules can be downloaded from http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/pdf/travshooting.doc

 

[middenface]

How about looking at the Ranges for the strategic/heavy stuff that is expressed as KM instead of 'rifle' 'pistol' etc.
Does that mean they do no get range mods>? Should they have a minimum range?

 

[dmccoy1693]

My first thought is nine specialties seems like an awful lot. 5 seems ideal to me and 7 seems fine but 9?! Having said that, I'm not sure where to draw the line.

My first instinct would be to drop the difference between slug and energy, but as was pointed out on TravellerRPG.com, 1) maintenance between the two would be completely different, and 2) wind, gravity, distance, etc would be completely different factors between slug and energy. On that last one, I don't see how a slug specialist would have a problem being equally fine switching to an energy weapon after a few practice shots of getting to know the weapon. However, the reverse, I can totally see a problem. So I can't see drawing a line there.

My next instinct would be to either get rid of PDW, rifle or support. However, on the same thread linked above (but different posts) the weapons enthusiasts made good arguments for the inclusion of all three.

So the best I can come up with is to shrug and say, "ok."

Next, I like the new AP notation. No complaints from me at all.

However the destructive weapons notation, Suggestion: Destructive should be DD10 and Ultra-Destructive should be DD20. This way it keeps with the new AP rules of simply multiplying the number of dice by the number after the DD.

 

[Old timer]

My first thoughts on this, agree with what dmccoy1693 said about the specialities, 9 seems too many. Like the AP notions, but i find it a little odd that not all plasma/fusion weapons get AP, it seems inconsistent, more so when FGMP gets AP, but not the vehicle mounted Fusion X, Y, Z guns. Also the weapon damage for the fusion rifle (5d+2-6) and fusion pistol (4d+2-6) seems an odd way to do things, i would of thought the -6 in effect cancels out one dice rolled, so why not make the weapons 4d+2 and 3d+2 instead?

 

[MongooseMatt]

So the best I can come up with is to shrug and say, "ok."

That is kinda where we ended up

However, given that once you have the skill, you have competency in all, it actually expands things out a little by allowing support weapons to be included in Gun Combat rather than Heavy Weapons.

However the destructive weapons notation, Suggestion: Destructive should be DD10 and Ultra-Destructive should be DD20. This way it keeps with the new AP rules of simply multiplying the number of dice by the number after the DD.

I like that, consider it yoinked.

How about looking at the Ranges for the strategic/heavy stuff that is expressed as KM instead of 'rifle' 'pistol' etc.
Does that mean they do no get range mods>? Should they have a minimum range?

They kind of have their own rules, whereby accuracy depends more on the forward observer than the firer. CSC has rules for this, and we are revisiting them in Mercenary II.

 

[MongooseMatt]

My first thoughts on this, agree with what dmccoy1693 said about the specialities, 9 seems too many. Like the AP notions, but i find it a little odd that not all plasma/fusion weapons get AP, it seems inconsistent, more so when FGMP gets AP, but not the vehicle mounted Fusion X, Y, Z guns.

Given that these weapons come from a variety of sources, you will find inconsistencies - another reason I wanted you chaps to take a look

Also the weapon damage for the fusion rifle (5d+2-6) and fusion pistol (4d+2-6) seems an odd way to do things, i would of thought the -6 in effect cancels out one dice rolled, so why not make the weapons 4d+2 and 3d+2 instead?

Actually, nearer 2 dice. It is to do with playing around with probabilities, but we would welcome input on this.

 

[locarno24]

I imagine a laser - at least a man-portable one - is going to need a different set of skills to use in combat, too. You're probably not going to deliver a bullet-equivalent chunk of energy with an instantaneous pulse - which means that you're going to need to keep the shot on a precise target for a period of time. Admittedly not a massive period of time (we're talking half a second, maybe?), but enough - sufficient that when firing at a moving target, you've got an effect equivalent to dealing with recoil, but in a different way.

Compare to current ship-mounted anti-air lasers, which need to 'track' a target for several seconds to produce lethal damage.


As to AP value - rather than listing something as 10D AP2, is it not easier on the brain to list it as 10D AP20, and put the 'true' value?

Also - I approve of not giving everything and it's dog Semi Armour Piercing, as CSC did. Enough people have had rants on this forum about battledress not being worth it's price* without taking away 2-3 points more armour from it...

Can't help but notice that Matter Disintegrators have no listed AP value. DD also seems inappropriate since there's no reason for the damage boost.

It would be nice to have an extra category - I suggest a notation "AP X" - which receives no damage multiplier but still ignores all armour - this would be what you'd use for thing like disintegrators, arc-field swords.

Lastly; one thing you could do with making clear is how small arms interact with spacecraft - if you're preserving the 50:1 damage multiplier, then fine, but do AP values reduce spacecraft armour or scaled armour - in short, can a 26mm Orbital Defence Cannon actually hurt an armoured spacecraft? If DD ignores starship armour too, then it can still do 1-2 points of spacecraft scale damage, which is enough for a ground-based battery to at least inconvenience a rogue starship..



* it is, but not because of it's armour protection - compare it to augments for the price of stat increases

 

[Nerhesi]

I think the 9 Weapon skills is the lowest you can go to. Thats about as atomic/granular you can get it without making it too complicated, and as high level as you can be without having to suspend belief.

Matt - I have concerns regarding the new AP options; more specifically regarding Destructive/Ultra Destructive

1) Moving to AP1,2,3,4,5 - great. Love it. Cleaner notation.

2) Should clarify what happens to the previous DD or UD notations, which should definitely not be remaining (vehicle mounted plasma guns and nuclear guns and so on). These would be moving to AP4 or AP 5 I think.

2) D and UD - we should really be careful with this as it is now IGNORING armor. Ignoring what armor? Vehicle armor? Spaceship armor? I dont think we should be differentiating between personal and vehicle armor as they are the same (especially comparing battledress to tanks). Saying that, this becomes way too powerful if it is even allowed on a tank weapon; as it would render armor completely useless.

Honestly, I dont think we'd want destructive/ultra destructive weapons ever available - it is like taking all the options/richness from all the armors and weapons available and tossing them out. So the only balanced use for them would be the Orbital gun (and other anti-spaceship weapons only, and thats it) - which then means we should clarify how D and UD interact with spaceship armor.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Honestly, I dont think we'd want destructive/ultra destructive weapons ever available - it is like taking all the options/richness from all the armors and weapons available and tossing them out. So the only balanced use for them would be the Orbital gun (and other anti-spaceship weapons only, and thats it) - which then means we should clarify how D and UD interact with spaceship armor.

Working on this specifically this week* - and DD and DUD weapons will only appear on starship scale type guns like anti-orbital stuff and huge 40k style mega-cannon.

You ain't going to see it on a pistol


* Basically, going to personal/vehicle scale, all starship weapons gain the DD trait, and starships can only be affected by ground weapons that have the DD trait, which they lose when going up to starship scale. Simple and easy.

 

[dmccoy1693]

I like that, consider it yoinked.

Wahoo!!!

 

[dragoner]

Get rid of PDW, it sounds like nonsense, esp since all small arms are "Personal Defense Weapons", basically.

Ranges in meters would be nice.

The AP notation should involved the damage multiplier.

 

[tuz_sen]

For specializations previously
Gun Combat
-Zero-G
-Slug Pistol
-Slug Carbine
-Slug Rifle
-Laser Pistol
-Laser Carbine
-Laser Rifle
-Shotgun

Heavy weapons
-auto-cannon
-launcher
-Man portable
-field artillery
-Flame thrower
-Energy weapon

So these rules move auto-cannon and energy to gun combat
then break up field artillery in to slug an energy
and removes the zero-G so over all it doesn't change the number of specializations

I will say though that if it needs destructive to harm spaceships there needs to be more weapons with that quality at the vary least for vehicle mounting because otherwise star ships and space fighters are close to immune to ground fire.

 

[Infojunky]

I don't see any Glaring issues as I look over the doc other than what has been mentioned before in this thread.

Tangentially related under this new regime how would a Starship's Laser be rated?

 

[tuz_sen]

if I understand it a beam laser for example would be "1d6 destructive" or "1dd10"

 

[Mytholder]

If you're making changes on that scale, I'd be tempted to go back and redo the corebook weapons to make them more distinctive. Give lasers a very different feel to slug throwers, and give gauss weapons a different niche again. (Maybe only slug throwers get Auto, lasers get bigger damage, and Gauss weapons are the kings of AP).

Destructive seems like overkill. You might as well say "yeah, the target's smashed". The original version of destructive was there to model power guns from Hammer's Slammers; the new one doesn't do that to my mind.

 

[Nerhesi]

Hopefully DUD for all starship weapons pls.

Regular "destructive" should be reserved for that stuff halfway between massive conventional weaponry and starship weaponry.

To avoid any problems going backward, all starship weapons should have the same DUD when converted back. Although, I find it best that we dont convert them back at all.

 

[mlooney]

Just in case you haven't seen this, this the "OpFor" World Equipment Guide, 2011 version. This gives a fairly good idea what TL6-7-8 weapons can do. The even divide them up by tech level! Granted they call them "tiers", but they more or less line up.

Word Equipment Guide 2011

Warning, it's fairly large file

 

[mlooney]

Get rid of PDW, it sounds like nonsense, esp since all small arms are "Personal Defense Weapons", basically.

Ranges in meters would be nice.

The AP notation should involved the damage multiplier.

PDW an actual class of weapons. It is what they are calling the weird sub rifle sized weapons now. Classic SMG don't really exists as new weapon designs. Which is not to say that older designs like the MP-5 aren't being built, often in large numbers. The modern "PDW" have the "advantage" of looking like a SF weapon.
What the Wikipedia has to say about them.

By saying PDW you cover every thing from a M-1 carbine (not the same as the M-1 Rifle!) through the classic SMG, and the "modern" mutants.

 

[mlooney]

Hopefully DUD for all starship weapons pls.

Regular "destructive" should be reserved for that stuff halfway between massive conventional weaponry and starship weaponry.

To avoid any problems going backward, all starship weapons should have the same DUD when converted back. Although, I find it best that we dont convert them back at all.

I have trouble with the acronym DUD for the most powerful weapons on the battle fields. After all a dud is a shell that didn't explode. Just my 2cr worth.

 

[Nerhesi]

Sorry - I guess the acronym is UD.

The notation for damage would be #ofdice followed by DUD.
If a normal weapon did 2D damage (2d6);
An ultradestructive weapon doing 2 dice would be noted as 2DUD