Variant Ion Weapon Rule

[WHULorigan]

A simple EM-Field should be able to deflect charged ions in vacuum. So if running an EM-Field is not a defense, it needs to be asked why? How does it interfere with other systems, so that it is considered not viable or not worth the effort? Or, is it an effective "Ion-defense", but with a downside while activated?

Or are the "Ion Weapons" a low power neutral particle weapon system design to ionize and generate an EMP upon impact with the hull (or upon interacting with some ships subsystem like the M-Drive or Heat dissipators) in some manner?

 

[MasterGwydion]

A simple EM-Field should be able to deflect charged ions in vacuum. So if running an EM-Field is not a defense, it needs to be asked why? How does it interfere with other systems, so that it is considered not viable or not worth the effort? Or, is it an effective "Ion-defense", but with a downside while activated?

Could always use the Energy Shields to represent protection from Ion Weapons. Just make them only effective against Ion Weapons.

 

[J. L. Brown]

How does a emergency power plant work against ion weapons? Do they kick in and allow operation during the round of effect?

That depends entirely on who designed & installed the powerplant. They could stand-by until Ion Damage is detected, then kick in to help negate it; but no power may be allocated from any source until all the Ion Damage is dealt with.

A simple EM-Field should be able to deflect charged ions in vacuum. So if running an EM-Field is not a defense, it needs to be asked why? How does it interfere with other systems, so that it is considered not viable or not worth the effort? Or, is it an effective "Ion-defense", but with a downside while activated?

There are not a lot of 'simple EM-shields' in charted space; presumably Ion Weapons are designed in such a way that similar-TL defenses are not 100% effective. Interaction of Ion weapons with Energy Shields, Defectors, and other defenses is left as an exercise to whoever feels like writing them.

 

[WHULorigan]

There are not a lot of 'simple EM-shields' in charted space;

That's because there have been historically not a lot of electrically charged ultra-low mass weapon systems in Charted Space. The screening defense is probably one reason why.

 

[WHULorigan]

Could always use the Energy Shields to represent protection from Ion Weapons. Just make them only effective against Ion Weapons.

That seems workable. Note also that I edited/added to my post since you responded.

 

[J. L. Brown]

That's because there have been historically not a lot of electrically charged ultra-low mass weapon systems in Charted Space.

Plasma and Fusion weapons would also seem to be susceptible to anti-electrically-charged-weapon defenses. They exist, so apparently such a EM-defense is not a simple 'I Win button'. For various reasons, weapon developers have been able to make their products viable. If you want to complicate things -- and I often do -- you can devise such defenses and strongly tie their performance to their TL.

 

[WHULorigan]

Plasma and Fusion weapons would also seem to be susceptible to anti-electrically-charged-weapon defenses. They exist, so apparently such a EM-defense is not a simple 'I Win button'. For various reasons, weapon developers have been able to make their products viable. If you want to complicate things -- and I often do -- you can devise such defenses and strongly tie their performance to their TL.

Plasma is electrically neutral. And PGs & FGs tend more to the point defense and close-range anti-boarding / anti-fighter role.

But magnetic shielding is a possible defense. This might be another place where you can utilize the mechanics of the energy screen or shield rules against this particular attack mode.

 

[MasterGwydion]

I actually like the idea that there are more defensive measures in ship-to-ship combat. Having things like specific shielding (active and passive types) protecting against Ion Weapons. Meson Screens. Nuclear Dampers. Point Defense Batteries. The more of these types of things you have the greater the differences between civilian/paramilitary ships and actual military ships. Also, just My opinion, but then defenses take up more room. Right now, the tonnage ratio of offensive components on a ship versus defensive components of a ship just feels a bit off to me.

 

[J. L. Brown]

I actually like the idea that there are more defensive measures in ship-to-ship combat. Having things like specific shielding (active and passive types) protecting against Ion Weapons. Meson Screens. Nuclear Dampers. Point Defense Batteries. The more of these types of things you have the greater the differences between civilian/paramilitary ships and actual military ships. Also, just My opinion, but then defenses take up more room. Right now, the tonnage ratio of offensive components on a ship versus defensive components of a ship just feels a bit off to me.

I agree. I think Traveller could use more granularity in combat in general; including space combat. More damage types, each with specific defenses -- with the result of interesting trade-offs for ship designers. So you might end up with some odd designs which have strong defenses against one or more types of damage while being vulnerable to other types of damage.

 

[MasterGwydion]

I agree. I think Traveller could use more granularity in combat in general; including space combat. More damage types, each with specific defenses -- with the result of interesting trade-offs for ship designers. So you might end up with some odd designs which have strong defenses against one or more types of damage while being vulnerable to other types of damage.

A good place to add that would be in more defensive components and reworking the sensor rules the @Sigtrygg has talked about.

 

[WHULorigan]

The key for a Charted Space or similar campaign setting is to make sure there is a believable rationale for the operational mechanism of the defense that does some justice to the science part of the science-fiction, even if it still is fiction.