Weapon ranges table for MTU

[sideranautae]

Sorry, the board attachment quota has been reached.

Oops. Didn't know that small jpeg's couldn't be uploaded.

I'll remote host

 

[Infojunky]

Sorry, the board attachment quota has been reached.

Oops. Didn't know that small jpeg's couldn't be uploaded.

That's new.... But there probable a lot in the dead threads as well...

 

[phavoc]

Why would some beam weapons have a farther range? Are you assuming the beams will become too spread out to effectively transmit energy to their target?

 

[sideranautae]

Why would some beam weapons have a farther range? Are you assuming the beams will become too spread out to effectively transmit energy to their target?

Because of TL for Lasers. IMTU Pulse Lasers are TL 9. Beam Lasers are TL 10 items (and the end of the line for that tech). Fusion weapons just disperse as they aren't coherent (for point defense). The "Particle Beam" is not an EM spectrum weapon. Not really a beam but physical particles going close to the speed of light. TL 11+. I have no meson weapons.

Still working of "Torpedoes". They are more of a huge powered bomb. 10 ton minimum size as chem propulsion is inadequate for anything further out than Short range.

Rail guns can hit at ANY range if the target is immobile and your aim is good enough...

 

[phavoc]

Because of TL for Lasers. IMTU Pulse Lasers are TL 9. Beam Lasers are TL 10 items (and the end of the line for that tech). Fusion weapons just disperse as they aren't coherent (for point defense). The "Particle Beam" is not an EM spectrum weapon. Not really a beam but physical particles going close to the speed of light. TL 11+. I have no meson weapons.

Well, lasers are speed of light weapons. As far as particle beams being more physical than EM, I'd think you have even more problems keeping the particle stream from not dispersing as you would from keeping the beam from dispersing.

Still working of "Torpedoes". They are more of a huge powered bomb. 10 ton minimum size as chem propulsion is inadequate for anything further out than Short range.

Depending on what tech you are using, there's no reason why you couldn't have missiles and torps being launched from magnetic accelerators so that they would have the initial velocity of the ship that launches them as well as an extra-bump from the magnetic accelerators. Plus you could have highly energetic fuel that imparts a very high acceleration curve. Put all those together and your missiles could be extremely fast at short range/sprint mode, and for longer distances they'd not be useful in a stern chase, but always effective at someone chasing you - especially if they are bomp-pumped and not contact/near area weapons.

The partial limitation would be if you were firing off-bore, and then you wouldn't be able to get the extra speed boost from the accelerators.

Rail guns can hit at ANY range if the target is immobile and your aim is good enough...

Sure, so can torps and missiles, or anything solid.

 

[sideranautae]

Depending on what tech you are using, there's no reason why you couldn't have missiles and torps being launched from magnetic accelerators so that they would have the initial velocity of the ship that launches them as well as an extra-bump from the magnetic accelerators.

The "bump" won't be enough against that type of moving target at those ranges.

Plus you could have highly energetic fuel that imparts a very high acceleration curve. Put all those together and your missiles could be extremely fast at short range/sprint mode, and for longer distances they'd not be useful in a stern chase,

See RAW on chem M-drive performance. Also, see missile TL and you'll notice that they are spec'ed at OUR current TL. So, no. Not an option while staying within the rest of the rule set. Also, your dual performance isn't how chem propellents operate. It has been a problem since CT days. Just extremely sloppy rule writing.

 

[dragoner]

Well, lasers are speed of light weapons. As far as particle beams being more physical than EM, I'd think you have even more problems keeping the particle stream from not dispersing as you would from keeping the beam from dispersing.

Yes, they would most likely attenuate at the same rate, lasers would most likely be chemical lasers a well. But either way, all beams would be short range, realistically.

Depending on what tech you are using, there's no reason why you couldn't have missiles and torps being launched from magnetic accelerators so that they would have the initial velocity of the ship that launches them as well as an extra-bump from the magnetic accelerators. Plus you could have highly energetic fuel that imparts a very high acceleration curve. Put all those together and your missiles could be extremely fast at short range/sprint mode, and for longer distances they'd not be useful in a stern chase, but always effective at someone chasing you - especially if they are bomp-pumped and not contact/near area weapons.

To me, rather than change up all this, I'd say missiles, a long range barrage weapon; thus point defense weapons such as lasers could have a one to one effect, but effective fires would overburden another ship's point defense.

 

[sideranautae]

Yes, they would most likely attenuate at the same rate, lasers would most likely be chemical lasers a well. But either way, all beams would be short range, realistically.

Possibly. I don't have real world stats to compare the two. However, NO way they'd be using chem lasers. Even today, FEL's are MUCH superior. I agree that Short range is probable from what we know today.

To me, rather than change up all this, I'd say missiles, a long range barrage weapon; thus point defense weapons such as lasers could have a one to one effect, but effective fires would overburden another ship's point defense.

My players won't stand for the in game rule inconstancy. I don't feel the need to continue an error, no matter how long it has been ignored. There is no game reason to do so really.

 

[phavoc]

Depending on what tech you are using, there's no reason why you couldn't have missiles and torps being launched from magnetic accelerators so that they would have the initial velocity of the ship that launches them as well as an extra-bump from the magnetic accelerators.

The "bump" won't be enough against that type of moving target at those ranges.

That is entirely dependent upon what velocity your missiles launch at. If you can accelerate the missile to say 25 or 50gs upon launch it can be going quite fast. Though, as with any space fighting game, velocity is all relative.

Plus you could have highly energetic fuel that imparts a very high acceleration curve. Put all those together and your missiles could be extremely fast at short range/sprint mode, and for longer distances they'd not be useful in a stern chase,

See RAW on chem M-drive performance. Also, see missile TL and you'll notice that they are spec'ed at OUR current TL. So, no. Not an option while staying within the rest of the rule set. Also, your dual performance isn't how chem propellents operate. It has been a problem since CT days. Just extremely sloppy rule writing.

True, the missile drives are rather puny. But since you are rewriting things for your Traveller setting, there isn't a hard and fast rule that you have to accept some things and not others. That would be self-imposed.

If you want to make missiles truly effective in your setting you do need to modify the rules. There's no question about that.

 

[sideranautae]

True, the missile drives are rather puny. But since you are rewriting things for your Traveller setting, there isn't a hard and fast rule that you have to accept some things and not others. That would be self-imposed.

In that case it just isn't a rule (making those puny motors work that well) . It is rewriting Chemistry as a science. It would have a cascade effect for explosives and the portion of Chem M-Drives. Really BIG changes. Easier to just treat TL 7 tech as TL 7.

 

[phavoc]

True, the missile drives are rather puny. But since you are rewriting things for your Traveller setting, there isn't a hard and fast rule that you have to accept some things and not others. That would be self-imposed.

In that case it just isn't a rule (making those puny motors work that well) . It is rewriting Chemistry as a science. It would have a cascade effect for explosives and the portion of Chem M-Drives. Really BIG changes. Easier to just treat TL 7 tech as TL 7.

But the game itself is kind of a re-write of rules. And who knows what tech increases will occur in rocketry. Maybe they will create higher specific-impulse chemical drives that will more efficiently convert chemical energy to propulsive power. Traveller has explosives that can detonate along the lines of gravity, which is a rewrite of science. So I don't see why that should be an issue for a science fiction game. (shrug) Just my opinion.

 

[sideranautae]

Traveller has explosives that can detonate along the lines of gravity, which is a rewrite of science. So I don't see why that should be an issue for a science fiction game. (shrug) Just my opinion.

Well, at TL 7 it would HAVE to be a science rewrite. WE are at TL 7. Also, chemistry wise it's almost as big of a stretch as Jump drive is in general. The game requires FLT drives. It doesn't require magic missiles in any form to work. (for my group)

I have defined what is needed Science Fiction wise. I won't be adding anything above those requirements. Gotta reign it in somewhere or you end up like the guy that has ruined (IMO) the Star Trek movie franchise... But, this is PURELY a subjective taste thing. Not saying there is a right or wrong way to play this game we all like. I appreciate your time and input. I find idea exchanges with other players always valuable.

 

[phavoc]

Yeah, it's always going to be modifications to personal taste. I changed up damage rules to reflect changes in tech that we already see happening in just the last few decades. What I did was simply add damage the further you go up the tech ladder. So missile up to TL9 (and I'm talking standard spacecraft ones) do base damage (1D6). For every TL above that you get +1 dmg. So a TL15 missile does 1D6 +6 damage. This is done to reflect the changes to the technology, such as making a more efficient warhead, advances in miniturization, etc, that allow the same sized missile to pack more of a punch. It sidesteps the launcher issue (yay for standardization!), and it makes sense for players to seek out higher TL planets for better weaponry.

 

[sideranautae]

Yeah, it's always going to be modifications to personal taste. I changed up damage rules to reflect changes in tech that we already see happening in just the last few decades. What I did was simply add damage the further you go up the tech ladder. So missile up to TL9 (and I'm talking standard spacecraft ones) do base damage (1D6). For every TL above that you get +1 dmg. So a TL15 missile does 1D6 +6 damage. This is done to reflect the changes to the technology, such as making a more efficient warhead, advances in miniturization, etc, that allow the same sized missile to pack more of a punch. It sidesteps the launcher issue (yay for standardization!), and it makes sense for players to seek out higher TL planets for better weaponry.

Exactly. The static damage ranges over 9 to 10 tech levels of weapons represented in the rules strains credulity in its own way. Yours is another way to address that deficiency in the rules set.

 

[Infojunky]

To me, rather than change up all this, I'd say missiles, a long range barrage weapon; thus point defense weapons such as lasers could have a one to one effect, but effective fires would overburden another ship's point defense.

DING! DING! WE have a Winner!!!! Give the Man a Cigar!

Dragnoner my lad you just reinvented Roll-Back, a Naval tactic in which you roll back a defenders defense with waves of missiles.... A tactic which only matters in traveller depend on which particular flavor of starship combat rules you and your group favor. I knew that Surface Warfare Pin would be useful someday.....

 

[Condottiere]

I believe that Traveller players had conceived this strategy before Honor Harrington and after FF&S.

And kinetic kill missiles.

 

[phavoc]

I believe that Traveller players had conceived this strategy before Honor Harrington and after FF&S.

And kinetic kill missiles.

That's a true statement. Just watch most any cartoon featuring mecha and you'll see massive swarms of missiles. I enjoy the tech background of HH, but Weber didn't invent any of the concepts.

 

[dragoner]

Didn't Weber do Starfire as well? In the old High Guard/TCS, people made missile cruisers called "hamsters" (we called them scrubbers). But given that the paradigm of the original Book 2, you only really have missiles and lasers, which is somewhat realistic; but the military thinks of firepower in multiple fires. Which is point break for RPG's, because the big thing is individual combat.

 

[Condottiere]

Our missiles and torpedoes are so cheap that they may be sold below production cost.

Still, I recall it's economic considerations that prevent an all out missile exchange.

 

[Infojunky]

I believe that Traveller players had conceived this strategy before Honor Harrington and after FF&S.

No officers in the USN and other navies where working on it as far back as the 60s pretty much to the point of guided missiles used in surface warfare.

Also Note it is an effective tactic in Book 2 combat as well as Mayday.

Sidenote in the wayback Machine I played Larry Bond's Harpoon with a bunch of Ensigns and Lieutenant JGs from the air wing while on cruise after a commander in the air wing watched me and a couple of Quartermasters play it on the chart table late one night (we were all kinda supposed to be on watch, but the air wing wasn't flying and we were cruising in circles...)