Weapons in Mercenary

[B_Steele]

But you seem to be implying that the people for whom Mercenary was intended - the military-oriented gamers - should be the same.

As a quick aside, this book was not designed for military-oriented gamers. It was designed for all gamers of Traveller to have new options that expand their game. I would never design a book aimed a specific type of gamer, it alienates part of our customer base no matter what. The closest thing I might do is aim at a specific role or mentality of the characters, but never at the gamers. All I aim for is a book that is interesting to read and a game that is fun to play.

Cheers all,
Bry

 

[Junior]

Might want to allow a vehicle damage a starfighter or other smallcraft, maybe even medium craft too, at least the smaller ones, now that I think about it, but yeah a vehicle shouldn't be damaging a cap ship

 

[MadDog]

My own way probably would be to put small arms, vehicle weapons and
starship weapons into three different "scales"

A lot of starship weapons would fit into a vehicle. Sure, a spinal mount is right out, but a missle launcher or laser should fit into a vehicle easily.

Mad Dog

 

[rust]

A lot of starship weapons would fit into a vehicle. Sure, a spinal mount is right out, but a missle launcher or laser should fit into a vehicle easily.

The missile launcher could be treated like the RPG mentioned above, in
this case as a vehicle mounted starship weapon.

As for a starship laser on a vehicle, I would hardly allow this in my cam-
paign, because the vehicle would be unlikely to have a power plant suf-
ficient to power the laser the same way a starship does.

 

[Junior]

If a 10 ton fighter can mount a beam laser then a 39.7 ton main battle tank could probably do it as well. Assuming the Vehicles Drive doesn't take up to much tonnage. and if the vehicle creation rules are anything like T20's you could jack it up on temporary power sources, and get significant EP's to use for your guns.

 

[rust]

if a 10 ton fighter can mount a beam laser then a 39.7 ton main battle tank could probably do it as well.

True, so the system would need two "sizes" of vehicle weapons, one
category that is used against personnel and unarmoured or lightly ar-
moured vehicles, and a "heavy" category that is sufficient to damage
heavily armoured vehicles and unarmoured or lightly armoured ships.

But with 4 categories / scales of weapons (small arms, heavy portable
weapons = light vehicle weapons, heavy vehicle weapons = light star-
ship weapons, heavy starship weapons) the system already begins to
become unwieldy, I think. :?

 

[Klaus Kipling]

Well you're going to have to show me how a 3d6 weapon can hurt 25 points of armour.

There is more than one TL15 tank, and more than one TL5 smallarm.

Eh? The answer is: It can't. Neither can the 4d6 LMG. Unless there's some special rule that makes 24 more than 25.

Just because something can harm something does not mean that it is at all likely. In fact, it is so unlikely as to be statistically irrelevant.

Did you not just demonstrate a 8% chance to damage a hovertrak with a TL5 LMG ?

A bit less actually. For 1 hit! Hardly scratched, let alone destroyed. Max 2 hits (0.5% chance, or thereabouts). Granted, small arms shouldn't be able to damage Armour, perhaps, but weapons? (check), sensors? (check), hull? Hull is just an abstract way to measure the absorption of damage before the structure breaks down. That tank can absorb a lot of attacks before that happens.

[edit] And that is for an elite trooper firing an aimed burst (as opposed to full auto) at close range at a stationary target...

With larger multiples of dice the upper and lower end become increasingly rare. Even in a long running campaign lasting years the players will not make enough attacks to guarantee giving a tank a hit with small arms, and that's if all they ever do is fight tanks with ACRs.

I think the point here is that the players should be smart enough not to fight armored vehicles with smallarms. Why would a GM throw so many AFV against players anyway ?

Well thanks for proving my point. Players and refs aren't dumb enough to enter situations where folk with rifles end up damaging tanks It's a rare statistical anomoly that will only enter play in perverse situations. Why should any rules system labour painfully over slight problems that will hardly ever occur?

The balance of probabilities is about right as it is.

No it isnt. The balance of probabilities of damaging a tank with a smallarm is ZERO. ZERO. ZERO.ZERO.

Challenger 2's have had they're sights damaged by small arms fire (Sensor hit) in Iraq. At the same time as absorbing dozens of rpg hits.

I also doubt a Sherman tank would have an AR as low as 10, not when a Ford Mondeo has 6. 18 more like it...

You are telling me that in thousands of years of armor development, the armor on a Sherman is almost as good as it gets ?

Seriously, if the top of line TL15 Imperial AFV has an armor of 25, what would you rate the TL 5 Sherman ? 8 ? 10 ? 15 ?

Where does it say the Gcarrier is top of the line? In fact, we know from previous editions of Traveller that it most certainly isn't (Intrepid grav tanks?).

These are my guestimated armour values for several real and not real armoured vehicles.

WW2 half-track - AR15
Sherman - AR18
Tiger - AR25
M113 APC - AR18
Challenger 2 - AR32
Bradley - AR22
TL12 AFV - AR18 (not a top of the line military APC perhaps, maybe similar to a police riot vehicle, or light APC)
GCarrier - AR25 (basically a 'flying tank', in laymans, or non-grognardy, terms, but really equivalent to an armoured humvee in Imperial terms)
Intrepid Grav Tank - AR45

Thats based on the optimum median damage of the weapon systems they face. (Roughly: half their max roll + number of dice -1). This is the damage they at least can expect to deliver just over half the time.

ACR (3D6) = 11
LMG (4D6) = 15
Laser Rifle (5D6) = 19
TL6 AT-Gun (6d6) = 23
TL8 AT-Gun (8d6) = 31
TL15 AT-Gun (10d6) = 39
FGMP (16d6) = 63

If a vehicle can defeat this figure with its armour then it really does not have to worry about these weapons too much; at most they'll deliver some very minor damage, none of it threatening.

If, in the other hand, you wish to boost the armour ratings, then all the weapon damages will need to be boosted too. Obviously a viable solution to you, if you like giant handfuls of dice.

Personally, I can take a slight increase in the chance of damage to tanks in situations that might occur once in every 100 firefights (in a 'regular' non-military game*) if it means we can do without another damage scale and conversion mechanism etc for quick, easy and streamlined play. It is such a marginal issue to redesign, and over complicate, the whole combat system over.


*in a military game, that infantry would be better off using their anti-tank RAM grenades over their sidearms. They'd be more likely to run out of ammo than damage an AFV with their ACRs.

 

[Klaus Kipling]

OK just done a little test: a platoon of 30 vs AFV

Looked at ACRs (3D) and Gauss Rifles (4D) on burst (+4 damage), with a +1 bonus to hit from skill.

vs the TL12 AFV (AR18) and the TL15 Gcarrier (AR25)

ACRs hit and penetrate armour of the AFV 3 times, for 5 hits in total.

They do not penetrate the Gcarrier at all. (And there were 3 12's in the attack rolls)

With Gauss Rifles, the difference is more dramatic: they hit and penetrate the AFV 18 times for 25 hits, destroying the last Structure point with the final round (thus destroying it in a ball of flames). Versus the Gcarrier they penetrate twice for 2 hits. (How did half-tracks fare against massed Vickers MGs in WW2? Anyone got any info? Did this ever happen?).

Interestingly, if the AFV had 20 points of armour, they would only have penetrated 8 times for 14 hits.

And this is 30 guys standing in a circle around a stationary vehicle and letting rip, if that were actually possible. Maybe a squad of 6 over 5 rounds, then. If the vehicle was fighting back and maneuvering the odds would be even lower. Remember, this isn't just pumping bullets into a chassis, but aiming bursts at weak points (just pumping in rounds would be full-auto, with more shots, but very low chance of penetration indeed).

So AR18 is proof against small arms (3d6, and proof does not mean totally immune) but vulnerable to support weapons (at the TL6-11 range). AR25 is more or less proof against all forms of projectile small arms and light support weapons.

So perhaps that Sherman should have armour in the 20 range. Maybe TL x4 as maximum armour for a military vehicle.

That AFV in TMB does not look like a front line APC akin to a Warrior or a Bradley (more like a heavy armoured car instead), perhaps, but the Gcarrier is rather formidable.

I would also suggest that Armour hits are ignored for small arms and LMG fire (any projectile weapon with less than 5d6 damage); perhaps have it for those occasions when there's a semi-exposed gunner in a turret or pintle mount. This would also mean that 1 in 6 hits that penetrate would be ignored. I might in my game modify the external hit table to make sensor, drive, and weapon hits more likely, and hull hits less so, as once those bits are gone hull gets taken off anyway. Searchlights count as sensors too....

If you want, add a couple of points of armour to beef up the vehicle, but any more than 3 is going to hamper the big guns from doing decent damage, and make those tank duels rather tedious. Once you get past the lower 20's no small arm is going to hurt it.

These are much easier fixes, if you need them, rather than root and branch reform of the armour/vehicle/damage system.

As an aside, I don't have bursts adding to damage, but giving a bonus to hit (half the auto rating as bonus, -1 for ever range band after close), so in my house game the likelihood for such things happening would be even more reduced.

 

[MadDog]

Eh? The answer is: It can't. Neither can the 4d6 LMG. Unless there's some special rule that makes 24 more than 25.

Arent you forgetting the effect ? Add in the size modifier, the autofire, your chances to affect armor 25 (much less "18") are > 0.

Mad Dog: Did you not just demonstrate a 8% chance to damage a hovertrak with a TL5 LMG ?

A bit less actually. For 1 hit! Hardly scratched, let alone destroyed. Max 2 hits (0.5% chance, or thereabouts). Granted, small arms shouldn't be able to damage Armour, perhaps, but weapons? (check), sensors? (check), hull? Hull is just an abstract way to measure the absorption of damage before the structure breaks down. That tank can absorb a lot of attacks before that happens.

1 hit which can destroy armor (17%), or structure (33%). Totalling, then, there is a 50% chance that a rifle round can affect the whole structure of the vehicle in a non-trivial manner.


MadDog: I think the point here is that the players should be smart enough not to fight armored vehicles with smallarms. Why would a GM throw so many AFV against players anyway ?

Well thanks for proving my point. Players and refs aren't dumb enough to enter situations where folk with rifles end up damaging tanks. It's a rare statistical anomoly that will only enter play in perverse situations. Why should any rules system labour painfully over slight problems that will hardly ever occur?

You cant argue that its cruel not to give players a chance to damage a tank with smallarms, and at the same time not think its cruel to put them into that situation in the first place.

You dont have to labor to fix the problem. I think the fix is relatively simple. You do need to fix it though.


klaus: The balance of probabilities is about right as it is.

Mad Dog: No it isnt. The balance of probabilities of damaging a tank with a smallarm is ZERO. ZERO. ZERO.ZERO.

Challenger 2's have had they're sights damaged by small arms fire (Sensor hit) in Iraq. At the same time as absorbing dozens of rpg hits.

OK, you convinced me. I am not going to contest a sensor hit on a TL8 tank. I think I can buy into that. Now please tell me which Challengers had armor knocked off or the structure of the vehicle damaged or the main gun damaged by machinegun fire.


MadDog wrote: Seriously, if the top of line TL15 Imperial AFV has an armor of 25, what would you rate the TL 5 Sherman ? 8 ? 10 ? 15 ?

Where does it say the Gcarrier is top of the line? In fact, we know from previous editions of Traveller that it most certainly isn't (Intrepid grav tanks?).

Where does it say there is something better ? "Standard fighting vehicle" I think the rules say.

In what Mongoose Traveller product is the Intrepid in ?

These are my guestimated armour values for several real and not real armoured vehicles.

WW2 half-track - AR15
Sherman - AR18
Tiger - AR25
M113 APC - AR18
Challenger 2 - AR32
Bradley - AR22
TL12 AFV - AR18 (not a top of the line military APC perhaps, maybe similar to a police riot vehicle, or light APC)
GCarrier - AR25 (basically a 'flying tank', in laymans, or non-grognardy, terms, but really equivalent to an armoured humvee in Imperial terms)

(I could take issue with some of your relative ratings, but that isnt the main point right now)

Considering the progress in armor design in the last 70 years, I am having a very hard time thinking that armor design is going to just about stop in the next thousand years or so.

How do you resolve the inconsistency in knowing that a machinegun is not going to damage a Sherman tank with an AR18 ? (barring a "sensor" hit - we are talking about armor and structure or main gun damage here), yet with the rules, it is quite possible ?

If, in the other hand, you wish to boost the armour ratings, then all the weapon damages will need to be boosted too. Obviously a viable solution to you, if you like giant handfuls of dice.

This isnt currently a discussion about AT weapons vs AFV. This has been a discussion about smallarms vs AFV.

smallarms vs. personnel armor = needs minor tweaks
AT weapons vs AFV = might need some changes, but I havnt really run the numbers
smallarms vs AFV = needs fixing to avoid silly results.

Personally, I can take a slight increase in the chance of damage to tanks in situations that might occur once in every 100 firefights (in a 'regular' non-military game*) if it means we can do without another damage scale and conversion mechanism etc for quick, easy and streamlined play. It is such a marginal issue to redesign, and over complicate, the whole combat system over.

The fix (smallarms vs AFV) is neither complicated nor involving lots of extra dice. its the same mechanism used for any weapons vs starships.

Mad Dog

 

[MadDog]

With Gauss Rifles, the difference is more dramatic: they hit and penetrate the AFV 18 times for 25 hits, destroying the last Structure point with the final round (thus destroying it in a ball of flames). Versus the Gcarrier they penetrate twice for 2 hits. (How did half-tracks fare against massed Vickers MGs in WW2? Anyone got any info? Did this ever happen?).

Doesnt it strike you as somewhat odd that the designers of a vehicle of comparable tech level (12) cant make it immune to smallarms - which is the whole purpose of an APC - much less a tank ?

And this is 30 guys standing in a circle around a stationary vehicle and letting rip, if that were actually possible. Maybe a squad of 6 over 5 rounds, then. If the vehicle was fighting back and maneuvering the odds would be even lower. Remember, this isn't just pumping bullets into a chassis, but aiming bursts at weak points (just pumping in rounds would be full-auto, with more shots, but very low chance of penetration indeed).

Is the situation any less contrived that shooting your TL 5 rifle through the armor of a high-tech tank ?

So AR18 is proof against small arms (3d6, and proof does not mean totally immune) but vulnerable to support weapons (at the TL6-11 range). AR25 is more or less proof against all forms of projectile small arms and light support weapons.

Proof ? I dont think having chunks of armor being blown off, or having the hull damaged is proof. I dont think the Imperial Quartermaster Corps is happy with you if they have to supply the spare parts for AFVs.

So perhaps that Sherman should have armour in the 20 range. Maybe TL x4 as maximum armour for a military vehicle.

Historical fact, machineguns arent going to knock hull or armor off a Sherman tank (I doubt even 0.50 BMG SLAPs are going to do this, and thats about the best case scenario from a machinegun perspective).

That AFV in TMB does not look like a front line APC akin to a Warrior or a Bradley (more like a heavy armoured car instead), perhaps, but the Gcarrier is rather formidable.

"A heavily armoured ATV" says the book. It cant be that heavily armored if some schmoe with a TL 5 LMG can blow big pieces off of it.

I would also suggest that Armour hits are ignored for small arms and LMG fire (any projectile weapon with less than 5d6 damage); perhaps have it for those occasions when there's a semi-exposed gunner in a turret or pintle mount. This would also mean that 1 in 6 hits that penetrate would be ignored. I might in my game modify the external hit table to make sensor, drive, and weapon hits more likely, and hull hits less so, as once those bits are gone hull gets taken off anyway. Searchlights count as sensors too....

It would appear that you are now agreeing with my general suggestion of "fix the problem", if I am not mistaken.

Mad Dog

 

[Junior]

if a 10 ton fighter can mount a beam laser then a 39.7 ton main battle tank could probably do it as well.

True, so the system would need two "sizes" of vehicle weapons, one
category that is used against personnel and unarmoured or lightly ar-
moured vehicles, and a "heavy" category that is sufficient to damage
heavily armoured vehicles and unarmoured or lightly armoured ships.

But with 4 categories / scales of weapons (small arms, heavy portable
weapons = light vehicle weapons, heavy vehicle weapons = light star-
ship weapons, heavy starship weapons) the system already begins to
become unwieldy, I think. :?

One thing I forgot to think of A 10 ton Starfighter may take up more mass do to using lighter materials while the 40 Ton Main Battle Tank may be that amount of weight because of lots of thick armor. If what I said is fairly accurate it might not even be fair to consider vehicle tons the same as starship tons, but I could be over thinking this. And of course I meant pulse laser not beam laser as that was the template for the Star Fighter in the Traveller Core Book.

 

[aspqrz]

Doesnt it strike you as somewhat odd that the designers of a vehicle of comparable tech level (12) cant make it immune to smallarms - which is the whole purpose of an APC - much less a tank ?

Actually, no. The purpose of an APC's armour is not now nor has it ever been (well, except for those Israeli tank/apc conversions) to "make it immune to smallarms".

They are intended to protect the occupants from smallarms of pistol caliber, though probably not at point blank range for some of the heavier caliber rounds in that category.

They are intended to protect against rifle caliber rounds fired from further than, if my memory serves me correctly, more than 50 meters ... and not against rifle rounds that are AP cored or similar.

They are intended to protect against shell fragments that are partially or mostly spent, due to distance.

Too many field commanders have made that basic error of assumption and used APCs as tanks ... with predictably tragic results.

TANKS are designed to be "immune to smallarms".

APCs are NOT tanks ...

Phil

 

[rust]

Yep, most of the modern APCs are lightly armoured transport vehicles,
and not designed to survive battlefield conditions.

One of the most common APCs of today (if not the most common) is the
French VAB. Its armour protects against 7.62 mm projectiles at medium
range, but anything more powerful will penetrate the armour and kill crew
and passengers.

Germany's future Boxer dual role APC / IFV will have a modular armour
system designed to protect against "heavy machine gun fire", and it is the
best armoured of all the new APC designs I know of.

 

[aspqrz]

Depends on how you define APC and if you have or lack an IFV (Infantery Fighting Vehicle) between APC and MBT.

If APC means an M113 or similar piece: Those are proof against shrapnel and offer some protection against weapons up to 7.62mmNATO

If APC includes stuff like the British Spartan than you get APC's that are at least proof against 12.7x99(.50BMG) and likely against 14.5mm Russian

Depending on the designation APC might even include beasts like M2Bradley, Warrior or Marder with armor proof against 23mm and more.

Nope. IFVs are really APCs ... a Bradley is somewhat better armoured than a M-113, but it is no more designed to be immune to smallarms than any APC ... and only fools will try to use it as a Tank. And only once per fool.

From Wikipedia: "Front Armor protects against 25 mm APDS from classified distance" ... nary a word about side, rear or top armour ... for a reason.

The other APCs/IFVs mentioned are also only resistant to the heavier caliber rounds mentioned on the front ... and as vulnerable to smallarms fire on the sides and rear (and hull top and bottom) as all APCs are ... making them anything but "immune".

As I noted, they are more resistant to smallarms than an M-113, but "more resistant" is not the same as "immune."

Semantics, sure ... but I was responding to a patently ridiculous claim in the first place, which, of course, wasn't your claim.

Phil

 

[duckydan]

If a 10 ton fighter can mount a beam laser then a 39.7 ton main battle tank could probably do it as well. Assuming the Vehicles Drive doesn't take up to much tonnage. and if the vehicle creation rules are anything like T20's you could jack it up on temporary power sources, and get significant EP's to use for your guns.

Isn't a 10-ton fighter 10 displacement tons? I would think that would be way more tons mass-wise. Maybe it might be like 100+ mass tons? I could be wrong.

 

[rust]

Isn't a 10-ton fighter 10 displacement tons? I would think that would be way more tons mass-wise. Maybe it might be like 100+ mass tons? I could be wrong.

Yep, a 10-ton fighter has a volume of about 140 cubic meters, and I think
the loaded mass would be somewhere between 70 and 210 mass tons.

 

[Infojunky]

The general rule of thumb established in FF&S was 10 metric tons to the displacement ton.

 

[Klaus Kipling]

Arent you forgetting the effect ? Add in the size modifier, the autofire, your chances to affect armor 25 (much less "18") are > 0.

Not forgetting Effect, and never said the chances are 0. I said very unlikely. On 4d6 there is only a 1 in 1296 chance of scoring 24, and a 5 in 1296 chance of scoring 23. My demonstration of a 4d weapon included the Auto bonus, and skill. No size bonus, admittedly, but once you figure in range and movement that more than balances.

There's a higher chance of damaging AR25 with 4d6 than being hit by a meteorite, but I still wouldn't bet on it, and any player who does is likely to die very quickly.

1 hit which can destroy armor (17%), or structure (33%). Totalling, then, there is a 50% chance that a rifle round can affect the whole structure of the vehicle in a non-trivial manner.

Can't destroy Structure - all Hull needs to be wiped out first, so that statement is incorrect. 'Hull' is just a damage sponge to create a delay before the structure gets hurt.

Where does it say there is something better ? "Standard fighting vehicle" I think the rules say.

In what Mongoose Traveller product is the Intrepid in ?

A humvee is a "standard fighting vehicle" in the USMC, as is a Snatch Land Rover in the British Army.

There's no published Azhanti High Lightning for Mongoose yet, but we know that it is on it's way. The Intrepid is a pretty prominent bit of gear for Traveller. Or are you suggesting Mongoose have promoted the humble GCarrier to the Imperium's fiercest fighting vehicle? Any evidence for that is very debatable...

This isnt currently a discussion about AT weapons vs AFV. This has been a discussion about smallarms vs AFV.

smallarms vs. personnel armor = needs minor tweaks
AT weapons vs AFV = might need some changes, but I havnt really run the numbers
smallarms vs AFV = needs fixing to avoid silly results.

Small arms vs personal armour are pretty much spot on. I've thoroughly playtested this over 4 or 5 combats, and I wouldn't alter them at all. You can if you want to, of course (this is an rpg after all! ), but I'd advise you to do it carefully; Mongoose shouldn't change the mechanics at all.

If you boost the armour ratings of vehicles to make small arms less penetrative, then you will also have to add damage to the heavy weapons, else you'll find they're not hurting what they're meant to often enough. The more dice rolled, the higher probability the results will cluster around the median. With really large numbers of dice, we're talking close to 95% being within a few points of median.

TL6 AT Gun, 6d6, median = 23
TL8 AT Gun, 8d6, median = 31
TL10 Mass Driver, 10d6, median = 39
TL14 FGMP, 16d6, median = 63

Therefore, at TL6, if your tanks have more than 23 or 24 points of armour, they're guns are unlikely to be able to hurt each other, at least on a non-geological timescale.

Doesnt it strike you as somewhat odd that the designers of a vehicle of comparable tech level (12) cant make it immune to smallarms - which is the whole purpose of an APC - much less a tank ?

Firstly, an AFV is not necessarily an APC. Armoured Fighting Vehicle includes things like the Ferret and the Bren Carrier, or a 20's armoured car. Or this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fennek

Is the situation any less contrived that shooting your TL 5 rifle through the armor of a high-tech tank ?

A TL5 rifle is not going to seriously hurt a AR18 vehicle, as I showed. It took some minor damage, is all, and that required autofire, which your TL5 rifle does not have. And referring to the AFV or the Hovertrak as a "high tech tank" is misleading. The Hovertrak looks like a poor man's 'tank' at best; suitable for merc outfits and banana republics, but not top of the line Imperial Marines, who will have 'proper tanks'

"A heavily armoured ATV" says the book. It cant be that heavily armored if some schmoe with a TL 5 LMG can blow big pieces off of it.

Well an ATV is little more than an off-road winnabago. Going by it's stats, and performance, it's no APC. That said, the LMG is more like a .50 cal than an M60. By it's description it's uncertain as to whether it is meant to be shoulder slung or just 'man portable', like this: http://world.guns.ru/machine/mg05-e.htm

How do you resolve the inconsistency in knowing that a machinegun is not going to damage a Sherman tank with an AR18 ? (barring a "sensor" hit - we are talking about armor and structure or main gun damage here), yet with the rules, it is quite possible ?

Well I then decided to test my assertion; 3d6 weapons will not seriously harm AR18, but 4d6 ones will eventually. As long as they're standing right next to it, it doesn't move, and it doesn't fight back. However, AR25 is virtually immune to all small arms. To be more statistically useful we'd need to roll many more attacks than I can be bothered with; I will say that there were more 'high' rolls than 'low' ones; not many but enough to skew the sample towards 'more hits'.

It would appear that you are now agreeing with my general suggestion of "fix the problem", if I am not mistaken.
Mad Dog

I just agree Armour hits are unreasonable for small arms.

Fix a problem if you see one; tweak and fiddle, and tinker, but a demand for a sweeping reform of the system is totally unnecessary.

I suggest that mechanically there is no problem at all; perhaps some of the descriptions could do with tautening up.

In fact, most rpg systems have issues in this kind of area in some way, including previous versions of Traveller; MGT is one of the better ones, IMO.

 

[Infojunky]

In general looking over this thread the point of argument is all about the inherent lack of scale that encompasses the Mongoose Traveller line.

A lot of this is due to the nature of how the material that the books are based off of where scaled and how that was converted.

i.e. in MGT damage is scalar while it isn't in CT (or at least the three basic books)

The linear scale that was chosen (note that this was an arbitrary choice) that lumps nearly all the lower end (PC scale) weaponry into the same damage regime.

It also lumps all damage into one category. while this is fine as a simple mechanic, it begins to fail as different option are wanted to inflict said damage i.e. things like armor piercing munitions. How a Armor piercing round effects the object it strikes after penetrating the Armour coat is vastly different when comparing flesh to machinery.

So the real question is "What is Damage?"

 

[Infojunky]

Another point.

What's the scale of damage, linear or logarithmic?