Updated Vehicle Handbook in the works

[phavoc]

And nobody wants to roll to hit 35 times...
I've done a little bit with naval combat, more about ramming and stuff, but battery (as in grouped guns, not electricity) rules and the actual strength of the ships should come into play. That ship is off, too - crew of 425 and 10 bunks? I've heard of hot bunking, but, really? Plus, a Galleon or really any ship before steam should be TL2 or less. And so should the cannon. In the case of that ship 800 hull is 32 1/3 cannon hits (with no bonus for effect and I forgot about the armour - oh, add, um 2 for TL...) to completely sink, so that's a critical every 3 hits. The rate of fire of cannon is nowhere near one per round, though, so working on that too...

To be fair, the description says: "a single volley can be enough to end a battle"

One of the reasons they had so many guns was accuracy was, well, crap. And the destructive power of a cannon vs a ship wasn't that great. Massed firepower was the answer to try and close these gaps and be able to decisively engage the enemy. It's interesting to see how ships that engaged in drawn-out combat could still be closed, boarded and then taken as actual useful prizes that could be repaired and brought back into a fleet.

With modern weaponry's destructive power (and the combat/boarding rules), one would have to ask if this would still be a truism?

 

[Condottiere]

Speaking of towing:

 

[Geir]

With modern weaponry's destructive power (and the combat/boarding rules), one would have to ask if this would still be a truism?

Doubtful. With over-the-horizon engagements, air power and smart(er) weapons... well the only recent 'fair fight' was probably the Falklands and that was more than forty years ago with a lot less precision. I do remember a lot of effort the British went through to keep some of their destroyers afloat, but it would have been a lot harder if a ship with a boarding party was approaching. (No, I don't want to veer off into a discussion of that war, but it's the only real example I can think of during my lifetime where both sides had major naval combatants in conflict.)

(Oddly, the most modern example of major combatants sinking is one in which the other side doesn't even have a Navy, but this isn't the forum for that one either).

 

[MasterGwydion]

Remember it takes you just as long to slow down and stop...

True, but you could build the braking system into the terminal instead of using the vehicle's engines to stop, Tractor Beam or some such.

 

[MasterGwydion]

One of the reasons they had so many guns was accuracy was, well, crap. And the destructive power of a cannon vs a ship wasn't that great. Massed firepower was the answer to try and close these gaps and be able to decisively engage the enemy. It's interesting to see how ships that engaged in drawn-out combat could still be closed, boarded and then taken as actual useful prizes that could be repaired and brought back into a fleet.

With modern weaponry's destructive power (and the combat/boarding rules), one would have to ask if this would still be a truism?

That is why I wanted to change the Ion rules to be more effective. Then this would still be a thing. Disabling and boarding, then repairing later.

 

[phavoc]

Doubtful. With over-the-horizon engagements, air power and smart(er) weapons... well the only recent 'fair fight' was probably the Falklands and that was more than forty years ago with a lot less precision. I do remember a lot of effort the British went through to keep some of their destroyers afloat, but it would have been a lot harder if a ship with a boarding party was approaching. (No, I don't want to veer off into a discussion of that war, but it's the only real example I can think of during my lifetime where both sides had major naval combatants in conflict.)

(Oddly, the most modern example of major combatants sinking is one in which the other side doesn't even have a Navy, but this isn't the forum for that one either).

One of the issues discovered was that this was the first actual war fought with missiles and modern-design warships. The Exocets were pretty deadly, but they also discovered that the new form of ship design with zero armor and defenses (even the full-up aluminium hulls) left something to be desired. I think the British, like any navy, struggled with the fact that nobody had any experience fighting naval warfare with missiles. The Royal Navy has one of the longest set of naval traditions in existence - yet their sailors reacted like any navy would that had not seen combat in nearly 4 decades - poorly and had to learn on the job. And the UK had not deployed a battle fleet half-way around the world in quite some time.

I don't see anything wrong with discussing the war and using it as a real-world example as to how things actually worked in order to build a better model.

Traveller has you having to disable a ship before boarding (or convincing them to surrender) - so she should be pretty well shot-up by that time. Based on very recent Somali pirate attacks you see merchants surrendering once someone is onboard. Of course, merchants aren't allowed to be armed, and no cargo line wants to pay for the armed guards or giving their crews small arms to repel boarders. Traveller is more like the age of sail when pretty much everyone mounts some kind of defensive weaponry.

That is why I wanted to change the Ion rules to be more effective. Then this would still be a thing. Disabling and boarding, then repairing later.

My issue with the power of ion weaponry is that it SHOULD have some easy defeats. Kind of like how EMP can be defeated if you build your electronics with the expectation that it could be used, thus you harden things so that if/when they are used your equipment is not affected by it. I can see civilian ships being built to lower/cheaper standards as they are not expecting to fight. But pretty much any military ship would be built to withstand such a crippling single attack.

Also - where are the ion torpedoes? The ability to project such a thing in a one-time attack makes them prime candidates to project your force way beyond just the ship.

 

[J. L. Brown]

Traveller has you having to disable a ship before boarding (or convincing them to surrender) - so she should be pretty well shot-up by that time. Based on very recent Somali pirate attacks you see merchants surrendering once someone is onboard. Of course, merchants aren't allowed to be armed, and no cargo line wants to pay for the armed guards or giving their crews small arms to repel boarders. Traveller is more like the age of sail when pretty much everyone mounts some kind of defensive weaponry.


My issue with the power of ion weaponry is that it SHOULD have some easy defeats. Kind of like how EMP can be defeated if you build your electronics with the expectation that it could be used, thus you harden things so that if/when they are used your equipment is not affected by it. I can see civilian ships being built to lower/cheaper standards as they are not expecting to fight. But pretty much any military ship would be built to withstand such a crippling single attack.

Also - where are the ion torpedoes? The ability to project such a thing in a one-time attack makes them prime candidates to project your force way beyond just the ship.

Regular armor does not confer absolute immunity against kinetic weapons; and ion-defense should be similar. Ion weapons should require a specific defense; and that defense should not be absolute immunity. Since is it a specialized item, I can understand it being less expensive than regular armor.

On modern Terra, EMP hardening only gets a piece of equipment so far; a sufficiently powerful EMP will still get through.

 

[Sigtrygg]

I can not put into words my disappointment that Mongoose chose to introduce ion weapons directly from Star Wars without a thought to even pseudo science.
An ion is a charged particle, particle accelerator weapons already exist within the setting.

If ion weapons are meant to be directed energy electromagnetic pulse guns then call them some version of that, not rip off Star Wars. T5 and AotI call them EMPs - empee; in the Culture they are called affectors (taking liberties with that one) - anything but ion cannon.

With that off my chest - ion torpedoes or even small craft "drones" equipped to produce an EMP make sense, but then I have meson torpedoes...

and yes meson guns are just as silly name wise - weak force meson disruptor device... meson disruptor... MD... the doctor (now I am ripping off Orson Scott Card)

 

[tytalan]

I've already told him that he is remembering wrong - but since he has me on ignore can't benefit.
The hydrofoil in Nomads of the World Ocean is not grav locomotion, it is a hydrofoil/submersible.

No I’m not remembering wrong in the adventure they use grav thrust for the drive not jets, not propellers. It’s also reprinted in 101 vehicles pg 25 the Dashi Hunterfoil loco: std grav thrust. So unless you can give up a pic proving that it does not say it uses grav thrust to power the hunter foil I suggest you think twice before you attack someone. Yes it is a hydrofoil/submersible but apparently you can’t read

Gier that reminds me in one of the CT adventures they had a hydrofoil craft that used a grav drive for getting a higher velocity but it didn’t give it any flight ability, while I don’t think this is appropriate for most ground vehicles it might be a good option for water vehicles.

notice I never said it fly’s so maybe think before you respond. Just because something has grav thrust doesn’t mean it’s meant to fly which was part of my point

 

[Condottiere]

A ground-effect vehicle (GEV), also called a wing-in-ground-effect (WIG), ground-effect craft, wingship, flarecraft or ekranoplan (Russian: экранопла́н – "screenglider"), is a vehicle that is able to move over the surface by gaining support from the reactions of the air against the surface of the earth or water. Typically, it is designed to glide over a level surface (usually over the sea) by making use of ground effect, the aerodynamic interaction between the moving wing and the surface below. Some models can operate over any flat area such as frozen lakes or flat plains similar to a hovercraft.

 

[tytalan]

While most aerodynes use vector thrust from below there is a form of Aerodyne that’s shape like a freebie and uses vector thrust across the top surface to create lift. Generally they use a mouse trap setup so air is drawn into the engine from directly above the center for intake for the engines which direct thrust across the top surfaces of the aerodyne. The science is solid but we lacked both the gyro’s and control systems when they were first tested alongside of helicopters. It’s a nice design since the turbines are protected from ground fire. There’s been some recent talks about this type of aerodyne but so far nobody’s been willing to develop the concept (at least as far as I have heard)

 

[tytalan]

Here something I remember from an old FASA Traveller book. It defined lifters, grav thrust, and maneuver

Lifters: lowest end of Grav tech able to cancel the effects of gravity on equipped vehicle provides no thrust and requires another source for thrust
Grav Drive: redirects the pull of gravity to both allow the vehicle to float and to provide thrust not usable outside of a planets gravity field (FASA later used this also for their tanks in centurion)
Maneuver Drive: Uses a combination of grav drive and nuclear damper technology to creat a thrust while within 1000d of a body. Maneuver drive tends to be both bulky and less agile in a planets gravity field which is why most planetary vehicles use Grav Drive.

Now this was way back in the early 80s a lot has changed but I think it’s a good ideal to consider the different performance profiles these three drives will produce.

 

[MasterGwydion]

My issue with the power of ion weaponry is that it SHOULD have some easy defeats. Kind of like how EMP can be defeated if you build your electronics with the expectation that it could be used, thus you harden things so that if/when they are used your equipment is not affected by it. I can see civilian ships being built to lower/cheaper standards as they are not expecting to fight. But pretty much any military ship would be built to withstand such a crippling single attack.

In My games I use Radiation Shielding to allow Armor to work against Ion Weapons, but IMTU Ion Weapons can crit as well.

 

[tytalan]

Why are we talking about Ion guns this is the Vehicle Handbook we are discussing not HighGuard

 

[Geir]

(not gonna put ion guns in the Vehicle Handbook. Maybe a stunner cannon for crowd control, but the only reference to ions is not a reference to ions, just the message that you can install starship-grade weapons - and yes, they have to scale properly I know, I know...)

 

[Geir]

No I’m not remembering wrong in the adventure they use grav thrust for the drive not jets, not propellers. It’s also reprinted in 101 vehicles pg 25 the Dashi Hunterfoil loco: std grav thrust. So unless you can give up a pic proving that it does not say it uses grav thrust to power the hunter foil I suggest you think twice before you attack someone. Yes it is a hydrofoil/submersible but apparently you can’t read

notice I never said it fly’s so maybe think before you respond. Just because something has grav thrust doesn’t mean it’s meant to fly which was part of my point
View attachment 2294

Oh, boy, I shouldn't step in here, but... this is a case of two people arguing from two different sources.

Nowhere in the adventure can I find it mentioning grav thrust and the vehicles are more described than speced. It does have grav thrust in 101 Vehicles, but the vehicle pointed at, and the one on the previous page are both missing the missiles mentioned in the adventure. The Dashi does fit the visual and TL from the adventure, though. I think what we're seeing is an artifact of the way it had to be designed within MegaTraveller rules, not something the Keiths intended at all. Since there is an event called 'Greenmat in Engine Intakes' that makes me think that it's some sort of thruster (water not grav) engine with a fusion power plant.

But be that as it may, the harder part for me, if I where to add an updated version, is that I really don't have a mechanism yet of making 'submersible' a secondary locomotion choice. And subs are odd ducks (diving ducks?) anyway, since if you look at diesels, they do better on the surface than submerged at least at TL4-5 (because they're running batteries and their submerged range and endurance sucks). So non-nuke subs are a pain to get right in terms of range and modes of travel - and these hydrofoil thingies actually sort of perform like a WWII sub, except like five times faster... and with lasers. And missiles (not torpedoes?).

But I know one thing for sure. No grav boats - but if there were, they would fly, not skim.

 

[Condottiere]

As with most things, it's a question of scaling.

What can interfere with electrical appliances, in terms of preventing the appliance from utilizing energy?

Then size, range, effect, and so on.

That would be ion weapon system equivalent.

Which has got to be fun for grav tanks.

 

[J. L. Brown]

As with most things, it's a question of scaling.

What can interfere with electrical appliances, in terms of preventing the appliance from utilizing energy?

Then size, range, effect, and so on.

That would be ion weapon system equivalent.

Which has got to be fun for grav tanks.

Yup; I could certainly see EMP-effects being an important element of the future battlefield -- but the Vehicle Handbook goes out of its' way to be vague, hand-wavy, and incompatible with everything else. The result is that Vehicles do not have 'power points', and so 'ion Weapon' mechanics cannot be moved over from High Guard.

 

[Condottiere]

Which reminds, do air/rafts, or any other gravitationally motivated (ground) vehicles, have inertial compensation?

 

[Sigtrygg]

No I’m not remembering wrong in the adventure they use grav thrust for the drive not jets, not propellers. It’s also reprinted in 101 vehicles pg 25 the Dashi Hunterfoil loco: std grav thrust. So unless you can give up a pic proving that it does not say it uses grav thrust to power the hunter foil I suggest you think twice before you attack someone. Yes it is a hydrofoil/submersible but apparently you can’t read

Show me in A:9 Nomads of the world ocean where that say is is grav locomotion that moves it, not the DGP interpretation of it.

MT 101 Vehicles was wrong then and it is wrong now, it could even be argued that it is a different vehicle since it lacks the features of the A:9 craft.

notice I never said it fly’s so maybe think before you respond. Just because something has grav thrust doesn’t mean it’s meant to fly which was part of my point
View attachment 2294

Will you please stop the deliberately aggressive postings, you don't know me, I don't know you, but you are treating me, and others, as if we dislike you.